One manifestation of an unrealistic expectation of simplicity is the need to reframe complicated ideas or expressions into simpler jingoistic forms. The insistence of RightWing dogmatists on reducing all debate over a complicated issue like Iraq into a binary choice between "surrender" and "stay the course" is a classic illustration of the principle. As is "diplomacy = appeasement"; how's that worked out for us the last six years?

The drawback to simplification is that it falsely reduces our options. We have many more choices between those extremes, and the real challenge is to find the one that produces an outcome maximally in our favor; that is, there's an optimum outcome rather than an absolute one.

The problem we have had with this particular view is that when I ask for an example of these "many more choices," it sometimes gets very quiet.

On other boards, the argument has often then retreated into "there HAS to be another way," or "why should the Democrats have to come up with ideas when they're not in power?" That last one has an expiration date coming up fast, and the sheen of sweat is already showing up on the foreheads of Democratic leaders.

The Baker Report came up with little that was new, and in many areas, some of the recommendations were shockingly naive, including recommendations of negotiations with those nations currently supporting the attacks in Iraq, or Israel giving up the Golan Heights.

"Staying the course" does not mean using the same tactics over and over again. It means continuing the fight until you win, using whatever methods end up working. Maybe "staying the course" is less clear than something like "not giving up."

This is a hot war, and although nuance is king in many quarters, the hard fact is that in the real world you either win a hot war or you lose it. There are damn few "ties" in a hot war, or examples of a hot war that was resolved by diplomatic discussions with the enemy. Maybe Korea. Most of the time, diplomacy is what you get after one side surrenders.

North Vietnam was well aware that negotations were simply mechanisms to buy them time until they won. Iran is also well aware that as long as Iran and America are dancing around the negotiation maypole with the United Nations that they can build their reactors without military interference.