A surprising amount of the debate surrounding the war in Iraq has been about word choice. We’ve had debates about whether or not there’s a “civil war,” whether there’s an “insurgency,” what the meaning of “last throes” is, whether we’re “winning,” whether we can characterize the conflict as part of the “war on terror,” etc.
This is not to say the rhetorical questions are inconsequential, only that the White House’s drive to shape the language of the debate has led to a near-constant, ever-evolving discussion about language, which has run parallel to the debate about the policy itself. The key difference, of course, is that in nearly every instance, the debate over word-choice has been unnecessary — the answer was fairly obvious.
We’re in the midst of yet another rhetorical discussion, and like the others, one word is clearly wrong.
With administration sources saying that President Bush is increasingly likely to order the deployment of tens of thousands of fresh U.S. troops to Iraq next year, there is a new war of words brewing over the Iraq War.
White House aides and senior Pentagon commanders have chosen an unusual term to describe the addition of the extra troops, referring to it as a “surge.” The use of the word “surge” by both politicians and many in the news media has meant the sidelining of the more politically-fraught term “escalation,” which is commonly associated with the Vietnam War. That, in turn, is enraging many opponents of the Iraq war, who argue that describing the addition of new troops to Iraq as a “surge” rather than an “escalation” hides the real meaning of what Mr. Bush is considering and may make it more difficult to mobilize public opposition to the move.
This need not be complicated. A “surge” suggests a brief increase in troops. Those who want to see tens of thousands of additional troops sent to Iraq right now are describing something very different.
Jack Keane and Fred Kagan, both of whom insist we send more troops, explained today that they want a “surge” that “is both long and large.” It prompted Spencer Ackerman to explain:
[T]his is not a surge. This is escalation. […]
[Keane and Kagan] themselves are half-steppin’. They argue against a surge in substance, but call their plan a surge as well, since they know that what they actually endorse — escalation — is vastly more unpalatable to the public.
Well, enough of this. Liberals, journalists, I’m calling on you. We must never talk about a surge unless we’re actually talking about a surge — a temporary infusion of troops. We should resist that as well. But now, if the proponents of escalation have escalation on their agenda, we must bring this out in the open and defeat it. Deal?
Deal.