Propel Them Home?

According to an article in this weekend’s Washington Post, President Bush once again reaffirmed his commitment to veto the House and Senate versions of a bill that would create a deadline for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq. This seems to be a daily ritual of his that we have all become accustomed to. For weeks, the cajoling among politicians on this issue has resulted in a media saturated with words like “early departure”, “withdrawal”, “surge” and “veto” swirling about.

So, it occurred to me as I have followed the whole “troop withdrawal” debate that perhaps it is in fact, the language inserted into the argument that is the real bugaboo to ending the war in Iraq. As I recall, it was President Bush or at least his administration that introduced this terminology to the debate. It has given him an unfair advantage and perhaps the anti-war proponents have not even noticed. Haven’t you ever been in an argument and found yourself vehemently opposed to another’s idea simply because of a word or phrase used to describe it? You know, those loaded words that make it impossible for you to agree with someone -the words used that you instinctually associate with a negative connotation. Well, in the case of the war in Iraq, President Bush’s words are really loaded. Afterall, debates are won or lost depending on words cleverly exchanged during a verbal joust. You give all of your power away if you allow your opponent to choose the words you can use during the debate. So, I think that may be exactly what has happened in the debate on the war in Iraq.

Clearly, President Bush wants to “surge”. Of course, “surge” sounds like a powerful and action packed word. It actually makes me think of electricity. On the other hand, for example, Bush refers to any alternative to the so-called surge as a “withdrawal” or “early departure” from Iraq. These words lack the same kind of colorful charge that “surge” has. In fact, it sort of sounds like a “retreat” as in you know, running away with your tail tucked squarely between your legs. It definitely, at least subconsciously, implies some sort of unsatisfactory result. Those of you with a Catholic upbringing may even associate “withdrawal” with “coitus interruptus” and I think you all know what I mean. So, it is no wonder that many politicians (mostly of the male, conservative persuasion) find the whole idea of “withdrawal” abhorrent. I have noticed that Nancy Pelosi can speak at great length, with ease and quite articulately about the need to withdraw troops from Iraq, but some of her male counterparts on the Republican isle look as though someone is about to dowse them with cold water at the mention of “withdrawal” or “early departure”. So, this got me to thinking. Perhaps, those in support of withdrawing the troops should argue their position by using powerful words that insinuate a mere shift in goals and subsequently the benchmark of success could then simply shift to peace.

I want to see the politicians who do not support the war in Iraq take back their vocabulary! I have compiled a short list of powerful words that could be used to entice supporters of war to become more amenable to bringing the troops home. Please see the short list below.

Instead of “withdrawal” from Iraq:

• “Strategically propel” them back to the domestic front
• “Shift our military power back” to protect the homeland
• “Transfer the troops to mission: ‘Secure Our Borders’”
• “Implement a new & important phase called ‘Homeland Protection’”