War of Words

There's an interesting development in the war of words between the President and the Dems over the President's plan for Iraq. Note the language: The President and his supporters are using the word "surge" while the Dems have chosen the word "escalation". Why the difference? The word "escalation" became associated with the left's favorite war, Vietnam, when Nixon "escalated" the conflict by trying to end it with the massive bombing campaigns in the north that eventually brought the North Vietnamese back to the negotiating table. To "escalate" the war became a bad word to the left.

A "surge" suggests a temporary increase in troops, and any increase is unwelcome to the left which would simply like to bail out and accept defeat. "Surge" doesn't carry the baggage that "escalate" does. Just watch the president's opponents and see which word they choose.

Jonah Goldberg, writing today in the LA Times, just wishes the Dems would at least show us the courtesy of telling us where they stand:

Americans are torn between two irreconcilable positions on the Iraq war. Some want the war to be a success -- variously defined -- and some want the war to be over. Conservatives are basically, but not exclusively, in the "success" camp. Liberals (and those further to the left) are basically, but not exclusively, the "over" party. And many people are suffering profound cognitive dissonance by trying to believe these two positions can be held simultaneously. The motives driving these various positions range from the purely patriotic to the coldly realistic to the cravenly political or psychological perfervid. Parsing motives is exhausting and pointless, but one fact remains: "End it now" and "win it eventually" cannot be reconciled.

With last night's speech, President Bush made it clear that he will settle for nothing less than winning it. He may be deluding himself, and his plan may not work, but he at least has done the nation the courtesy of saying what his position is, despite an antagonistic political establishment and a hostile public. What is maddening is that the Democratic leadership cannot, or will not, clearly tell the American people whether they are the party of "end it" or "win it."

Give Sen. Ted Kennedy his due. He not only wants the thing over, consequences be damned, but he's got the courage to admit it, as he did on Tuesday at the National Press Club. But when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid come to a fork in the road, they follow Yogi Berra's advice and take it. On the one hand, they tell the president that they want this war "brought to a close." On the other, they refuse to use their power of the purse to do exactly that, opting instead for a symbolic resolution. It may be the wisest political course for them, but it does a disservice to the nation by making the Iraq debate the equivalent of boxing with fog.

There's a part of me that wishes that Bush would just say "okay, I'm going to give the Dems what they want and order an immediate pullout and if the place falls apart, then you'll know how valuable Dem opinions are". Won't happen, but it would be entertaining.