Granted that term has been abused in large part due to Bush not evangelizing the variables in that course and allowing the MSM to define ’stay the course’.

To me, stay the course is maintaining the objective. You won’t get the MSM/DNC to admit it, but we’ve always changed tactics as the situation evolved.

The best example of ’stay the course’ is that scene in Star Wars where they’re flying in to take out the Death Star. Objective: killing the DS. Execution: they shifted tactics thrice from the original plan due to the realities of getting pummeled by defense tactics. Result: Kablooey. Yeah overly simplistic but vivid.

As for security approaches, what we’re doing is carefully studying the pros & cons of each manuever trying to fine tune for max impact. Certainly not jumping willy-nilly from one idea to the next. By nature, tactics tend to evolve slowly.

It’s only natural to try and save the Iraqis from themselves. But eventually you come to the point where you tell them if they want chaos, then deal with it yourself and don’t come running for help. I believe it’s called making your own bed… Had we done only provided security/aid to those requesting it at first, Rummy’d be criticized for not giving them a chance, or worse, ‘discriminatory’ for leaving some behind and helping only the chosen few.

As for the # of bases. That’s been pretty much the plan all along to narrow down to a handful from which we operate. As the Iraqis stand up, we hand the outlying bases over. The ones we intend on keeping are large and have had billions invested for hardened buildings, utilities etc.

Fortunately you and I both can agree that the Baker gig has been nothing but an exercise in pompous hot air and Bush ain’t buying it.

Nonetheless, the ISG was useful if nothing else but to call the bluff of Bush critics and funnel them to the unavoidable conclusion that we must stay the course. To wit:
1) Realpolitik:
a) Rummy shook hands with Saddam & nutroots condemn it as short-sighted, crass, dealing with the devil
b) Baker proposes to shake hands with Assad & the kooks in Iran & nutroots hail it as nuanced diplomacy.
Huh??? Realpolitik and Jim Baker are the common denominator in both cases.

2) Withdrawal:
a) Bush says don’t cut & run & nutroots say hogwash
b) Baker says don’t cut & run & nutroots say we gotta heed Jim
Huh??? Once again, it really is about venting against Bush.

If Bush was to walk on water, they’d nit-pick that he invoked his faith…

Simply put, they can’t bear to give Dubya one iota of credit. Better to utterly lose than to agree with him on any point. Lucky for the nutroots, the ISG gives them an out to do the ‘right’ thing while dissing Bush.

But I’m guessing that’s ok with Bush. As long as his objectives are being met, even throwing Rummy under the bus is worth the sacrifice.

Again, as you’ve often pointed out, Maliki is a big part of the problem from the Iraqi side of the house and is letting Sadr call the shots. But then again, correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t we have the chance to squish Sadr like a bug way back when but Bremer decided against it? Now, instead of a petty, but dead mullah, he’s now a big shot and eliminating him will be dear.

Oh well, these are the days…