Bush/Cheney present an idea that Bush and Company are steadfast and sure in their approach. Minor errors in the plan are presumed to be worthwhile because the heading is steady, the results will be clear, adjustments can be made at certain junctures, and meanwhile the message is clear, the enemy will lack comfort, we will all lack confusion anxiety.
The promise is that steadfastness avoids the blackening trap of confusion. But in reality, bullheaded steadfastness leads to confusion, such as "why am I here in this ring, why is that man prodding me, nevermind... I. must. attack. red. cloth."
It leads to a confusion called cognitive dissonance as reality fails to synchronize with the world view of the steadfast. Indeed, while most kinds of confusion are the part of a learning process, this sort is truly dangerous, leading evnetually to mental or emotional collapse.
On Steadfastness:
(1) Experiments: You have to be steadfast to your plan to complete them, you cannot "improve" an experiment by changing it once it's begun, only during preperation can you change it, otherwise you free the controlled variables and cannot interpret the results. This isn't the case here, because they do not see it as an experiment, they are -certain- they've got the right approach.
(2) Good Cop Bad Cop: mixed signals are in fact the real way to control an enemy (and I'm certain Cheney to Rove know this, they use it on us all the time). For diplomacy to work the other side has to see that both force and compromise are on the table. They have to see that there are bad deals offered and that the good deals are also sincere. You may have sent soldiers, but you have also sent NGOs with humane missions. Otherwise there is only one path to take, things are determined, the enemy is also steadfast, the solutions are prohibited, and the situation lacks flexibility to become soluable.