Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “"Flip Flopping" to "Stay the Course"”

« In Shocker, Arizona to Restrict Voting to Legal Voters | Main | Ain't That a Kick In the Head! »

October 20, 2006

"Flip Flopping" to "Stay the Course"

Hatched by Dafydd

Patterico updated his post about Jonah Goldberg's column to note my response to it here. More or less, Patterico and I agree to disagree on the necessity of the Iraq War... but I did want to get at one point that seems important to clarify.

In this course of his update, Patterico says this:

I think Dafydd and I would probably agree that failing in Iraq badly hurts our military credibility. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but he might well use that as an argument to stay the course. I think it’s an argument not to invade a country without a compelling enough reason, which I believe (again with the benefit of hindsight) that we did not have.

He's right that that's what I would say; but what would I mean? For that matter, what do I ever mean, if anything? Nothing, that's what! So 23 skiddoo!

First, I completely agree with Patterico that we must never "invade a country without a compelling enough reason." Where we differ is the definition of "compelling enough."

But more to the issue, what does "stay the course" mean? Let's start by getting rid of the straw ham: what does the phrase not mean? It does not mean you must rigidly maintain identical tactics throughout the war, never changing your orders even in response to an evolving enemy. Knock that off the table right now.

In fact, while Bush says "stay the course," his generals frequently switch tactics and even general strategy (or strategery, if you prefer): we run a riverine campaign; we fight along the borders; we attack in the provinces; we go door to door in Baghdad. Some campaigns are successful, others (such as the current Together Forward in Baghdad) are less so and need to be revamped.

But we're constantly changing; and in fact, such fluidity is precisely the point over which Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Shinseki fell out: the Secretary of Defense wanted a faster, more mobile, more responsive, and more flexible military with a smaller footprint. Gen. Shinseki wanted to stick with the Powell Doctrine, which was essentially how we fought Vietnam, Korea, World War II, and the Civil War under Gen. Ulysses S. Grant.

I liken the phrase "stay the course" to sailing a tall ship. If the wind is at your back, you can sail more or less straight towards your goal. But if you're sailing against the wind -- as we are in Iraq, with such a difficult but vital task ahead of us -- you must tack.

I know next to nothing about sailboats; so why did I even bring them up? God only knows. But what I do understand is that, when trying to sail against the wind, you must tack: you sail somewhat off your course to port, still making headway but also getting farther away from the straightline plot; and then, at some point, you come about and sail somewhat off the course, but this time to starboard. Thus, you zig-zag back and forth like a sewing machine, never actually sailing directly towards your goal (which would be impossible), but always moving towards it nonetheless.

To a person without any understanding of navigation, however, it can look like you just can't make up your mind which way to go: you keep swerving back and forth and back again! You're obviously lost, adrift, asea. And nobody likes you.

But if you keep at it long enough, you will suddenly discover that you've come down where you meant to be. And the passengers will be flabbergasted, because you spent the entire trip sailing in the wrong direction.

I think that is what's happening in Iraq right now: we appear to be sailing in the wrong direction, inconstant, hysterically swerving from left to right to left. But in reality, we know exactly where we're going, and we're just trying to find the right heading at any given moment to make way.

So with that caveat and under that definition, yes, I would agree with Patterico that failing in Iraq (which I don't think we're doing) would hurt our credibilty, and it would hurt the general war against terrorism more directly, too. And I would indeed cite that as an argument to "stay the course."

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, October 20, 2006, at the time of 6:59 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1378

Comments

The following hissed in response by: South Park Conservative

Thank you, Dafydd, for the excellent sailing analogy. It is the clearest description of how we are progressing in the Iraq war that I have read in a long time.

The above hissed in response by: South Park Conservative at October 20, 2006 7:15 PM

The following hissed in response by: jp phish

Dafydd,

I agree, the sailing analogy is good. Think of this also; the sailor must decide how often to tack. Each tack takes time, however fewer tacks mean that he must sail further from course, and the further from course the greater the uncertainty/risk (wind vectors change with time and location on the sea). This would be analagous to the enemy changing tactics as you change tactics.

One more thing, regarding Shinseki:

You wrote an article once, on March 30, 2006, on The Two Branches of Government, which described the temporary branch and the permanent branch.

I am a member of the permanent branch, a civilian engineer in a major Army project office. And know, with certainty, that the concept of a more agile army has been the direction for a very long time. The future war, back in the 80s, was likened to a soccer game and the war of the past was likened to a U.S. football game.

General Shinseki was very much involved in developing a lighter force after the difficulty of getting armor into Kosovo; he saw that as a major embarrassment and directed a fast track procurement of light and wheeled systems. The Shinseki-Rumsfeld conflict probably had more to do with process or personalities than with doctrine and material.

The above hissed in response by: jp phish at October 20, 2006 9:18 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

I think it’s an argument not to invade a country without a compelling enough reason, which I believe (again with the benefit of hindsight) that we did not have.

I wonder if Patterico could give us illustrations of the decisions HE has made based on future hindsight?

Now that really is a useful talent.

You make decisions based on what you have at the time,.

The queston, "Based on what we know now, would you have supported invading Input the Nation of your choice that needs invading

is IMO an asinine question,, because you can never base a decision on information you do not have.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman at October 20, 2006 9:52 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I wonder what people like Patterico think that Saddam would be doing right now if we had not invaded? Curing cancer? Staying out of trouble? Living up to his promises?

What makes people think that sooner or later we would not have been here? I think that the election here is effecting the violence here. This has been a bad month for American soldiers over there. My guess is the terrorists are trying to help the Democrats.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at October 21, 2006 1:17 PM

The following hissed in response by: Redhand

But in reality, we know exactly where we're going, and we're just trying to find the right heading at any given moment to make way.

Dafyyd:

I don't think even the Administration claims the "exactly where we are going" optimism I see in your comments. But you tell me, please. See Bush sticks to mission: U.S. victory in today's Wash. Times. I find it significant that the President has not defined (or should I say redefined) "victory" in Iraq in his latest comments. Nor, really, do you in yours.

Where are we going in Iraq? It certainly isn't just "regime change," nor could it have been. Creation of a Western style democracy at this point? Does anyone besides Dick Cheney think that's really still achievable in the midst of what increasingly looks like a three way civil war? See Cheney: ‘General Overall Situation’ In Iraq Is Going ‘Remarkably Well’

Lastly, do you think the Administration has handled this war (a) expertly (b) barely (c) poorly or (d) none of the above, since the fall of Bagdad? Do explain your answer.

The above hissed in response by: Redhand at October 22, 2006 3:22 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Redhand:

Lastly, do you think the Administration has handled this war (a) expertly (b) barely (c) poorly or (d) none of the above, since the fall of Bagdad? Do explain your answer.

First, you are being needlessly offensive. You are not my teacher, and I am not your pupil.

Second, you didn't answer my question; why should I answer yours?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at October 22, 2006 4:51 AM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

Golly Redhand, there's an awful lot or room between "expertly" and "barely". Talk about a straw man (or ham).

The above hissed in response by: Big D at October 23, 2006 9:35 AM