Why "Stay the Course"?

Good David Broder Editorial in the NYT's this morning. The reason Bush wants to 'stay the course' in Iraq is because if we don't, the 'other side' will claim victory.

But once the hope for victory is gone, the issue remains: What do you do? The answer from Bush and from Olmert is: Carry on. Do not waver. And do not question the logic of prolonging the agony.

This sure sounds alot like Vietnam War reasoning. We stayed there long after we realized that we could not win. We withdrew...lost, but Australia wasn't invaded and we didn't have to fight the 'Reds' on the shores of LA and San Francisco.

The other point Broder makes is that if Bush thought Iraq was such a danger to the USA, why didn't he prepare and execute the War more competently?

For the United States, it would have meant moving into Iraq with a large enough force to control the country after Saddam Hussein was toppled, not the pared-down deployment that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insisted would be adequate. And, as Tom Ricks of The Post describes in deadly detail in his book "Fiasco," it would have meant serious planning for the occupation. That planning never took place, making it impossible for Iraqis to live their lives with hope.

Whatever goals Bush had for the Middle East are long gone and there is no one to blame but GW Bush and the people he appointed execute the war (ok, ok, so we all know it's really Cheney that's to blame).