We can’t “stay the course” in Iraq unless we know what the course is. This is the point that links a number of seemingly disparate reactions that I have to the debate about what we should do in Iraq. Swopa linked to a New York Times Memorial Day article that said U.S. veterans would not fight today in Iraq nor tell their sons to because it is simply not clear “what we are doing over there,” e.g. what we are actually fighting for. If, deep down, our troops don't know and believe in what they are fighting for, how can they train and motivate Iraqis? And why should anyone else believe us?

We need a plan, yes, but not just as a tool in partisan politics (which many of our readers seem to care more about than the actual future of Iraq). We need it because what happens in Iraq is vitally important to U.S. security no matter who’s in charge. So if we have a plan we should be trying to sell it to the Bushies as much as to Dem leaders and aspiring presidential candidates.

But a plan itself isn’t enough. That plan must fit into a larger vision, a set of purposes driving and justifying the use of American power. The best-selling book in the country is A Purpose-Driven Life; we need a purpose-driven foreign policy. Those purposes have to be clear and compelling not only to Americans, but to people around the world. Without that vision, even if we do somehow manage to avoid catastrophe in Iraq, our veterans and everyone else still won’t understand what we are doing over there and will be free to attribute to us whatever nefarious motives they like. That is the precisely the problem with the disastrous way the Administration got us into the war – by changing justifications every five minutes they fed the worst suspicions of our enemies and many of our friends.

So now to specifics, for both the plan and the vision.