Language Creep

Does Vegas have an over/under on how many times we hear the word "terrorists" on Tuesday night?

If reliable tells like the weekly presidential radio address, Scott McClellan and Fox News are any indication, I'll take the over.

What Bush needs to do right now is an Oval Office, come-clean, look-right-into-the-camera speech about sacrifice, a hard slog ahead, and a concrete plan. A gentle admission of previous miscalculations would do wonders for his credibility, but of course that won't happen. What's not needed is mission accomplished-redux symbolism from a place like Fort Bragg with thousands of troops yelling in affirmation after every sentence. That the president is about to go the latter route indicates at best a continuing and dangerous unwillingness to leave his Rovian cocoon and face reality. And at worst, it indicates cowardice.

What's ironic is that those troops will be cheering even as their own mission continues to change and their exit strategy becomes less certain. The latest manifestation of this is the ongoing replacement of the word "insurgents" with "terrorists." This is a shameless Orwellian absurdity that any rational, clear-thinker must recognize and immediately reject regardless of political affiliation. Are there terrorists in Iraq? Yes. Are traditional, indigenous insurgents using terrorist tactics? Yes. But to make a blanket re-characterization of our enemy as "terrorists" is desperate and transparent mendacity, even without in-theater reports like this one from a senior U.S. military officer. It also distorts and diminishes what happened on 9/11, when civilians---not troops---were targeted.

Last week Karl Rove said, "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." With records of military service like this, I wouldn't expect Rove or anyone else in the White House to understand the best way to actually "support the troops." But I have a friend who was yanked away from a family and a career and sent to Iraq, despite having already served in uniform for years, including in combat during the first Gulf War. The only support he wants from home is a concrete, achievable mission. That mission has comprised first defeating the Iraqi army, searching for WMD's, finding Saddam and his sons and other senior Baathist leaders, guarding physical infrastructure including oil, power and water plants, fighting insurgents, pacifying dozens of cities besides Baghdad, guarding the borders, trying to stop foreign fighters from entering the country, assisting in reconstruction, maintaining security for the election, securing the Green Zone, and training Iraqi forces.

And now, "fighting terrorists."

That is not a concrete mission that leads to a realistic exit strategy. That is a set of constantly moving goalposts that defines mission creep. And when the mission creeps, the language---preferably as open-ended and difficult to quantify as possible---must creep right along with it. Thus, the "terrorists" mantra. Does anyone think we're ever leaving Iraq as long as we're fighting terrorists?

As civilians, we have an implicit agreement with our troops: they agree to defend our right to criticize our leaders, and we agree to exercise that right when necessary to ensure our military has a defined mission and a viable exit strategy. Because I think supporting the troops is important, I'm not willing to abrogate my part of that agreement. But enablers of language and mission creep by definition cannot support our troops. And because of the desperate word games and constant moving of goalposts, our political leadership falls squarely into that category---ironic, considering its recent hyperbole about "the motives of liberals."

On Tuesday night we'll get more color on all this, won't we?