Surge into '07

The discussion in Washington and on your television once again strays away from issues and policies and into the muddy territory of semantics. Do we call it a "surge"? Or do we call it an "escalation?"

From Crooks & Liars:

Nicole Belle gets the nod in the LA Times: "Storm rises over "Surge" by Johanna Neuman.

I've noticed a complete acceptance on the part of most of the MSM [mainstream media] (and Congress) to accept the White House nomenclature," blogger Nicole Belle wrote in a complaint posted on crooksandliars.com.

"After six years of this, I think we all know that he who frames the debate and chooses the vocabulary wins from the beginning. Let's be sure to not accept the White House framing, no matter how wimped out the MSM is."

As Jon Stewart pointed out last night on The Daily Show, the additional 21,500 troops heading to Iraq represent only 15% of the more than 130,000 soldiers currently deployed there (funny how they throw in the occasional hard fact every now and then, eh?). Said Stewart, "That's not a surge; that's a gratuity! That's a tip!"

If you want to play the word game, neither "surge" nor "escalation" fits the bill. "Surge" would mean that these additional troops would fill the streets of Baghdad tomorrow. "Escalation" would mean taking the conflict to another level by doubling or tripling U.S. forces, not topping off the glass to bring us back to 2004 levels. In fact, the announcement of the additional troops was hardly worthy of a word, much less a prime-time presidential address. This is business as usual for the Bush White House, only now they're making moves to cover their asses so later on they can say "well, at least we tried!" Unfortunately, it looks like more people are still playing their word games with them instead of actually discussing the feasibility and cost of such a maneuver.

Link via [Crooks & Liars]