CNN's Schneider noted that "surge" implies "temporary" -- so why does CNN use the term?
On the January 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, senior political analyst Bill Schneider suggested that Bush administration officials and other Republican figures have used the word "surge" to describe possible plans to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq because "it sounds temporary." Schneider noted that an alternative term for such a proposal -- "escalation" -- "sounds long-term." At the moment, it is unknown whether Bush plans to propose a short-term or long-term increase in troop levels. Those strongly advocating additional troops, however, such as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and American Enterprise Institute (AEI) resident scholar Frederick W. Kagan, have made clear that they envision a "sustained" increase, perhaps for as long as 18 months. But despite these facts and despite the implication of "surge," according to Schneider, CNN anchors and reporters have used the term numerous times to describe the potential increase.
In a January 5 report on what Situation Room host Wolf Blitzer labeled the "great surge debate," Schneider noted that the words surge and escalation imply different timeframes:
SCHNEIDER: Why "surge"? Why not "escalate"? Because "surge" sounds temporary. Waves surge and decline. "Escalation" sounds long-term. President Lyndon Johnson escalated the deployment of U.S. troops to Vietnam in 1965. That war did not end for another 10 years. Whatever you call, it sending more troops would provoke a political firestorm.
Minutes earlier on the program, CNN had aired a clip of McCain emphasizing that a "small, short surge of U.S. forces" would not suffice and clarifying that he specifically supported a "significant and sustained" increase in troop levels, adding: "We've tried small surges in the past, and they've been ineffective because our commanders lacked the forces necessary to hold territory after it was cleared."
Another advocate of bolstering troop levels in Iraq, Kagan has also made clear that he envisions a long-term increase. From a December 27 Washington Post op-ed he co-wrote with retired Army general Jack Keane:
Bringing security to Baghdad -- the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation and economic development -- is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail.
The Bush administration is reportedly considering various proposals involving troop increases at the moment. But whether he is leaning towards a short-term or long-term plan is not publicly known. Nonetheless, a review of CNN on January 5 alone turned up several instances of anchors and reporters describing the potential increase as a "surge," notwithstanding its "short term" implication as noted by their colleague Schneider. They included: Blitzer, senior national correspondent John Roberts, White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux, anchor Tony Harris, and White House correspondent Ed Henry.
From the January 5 edition of CNN's American Morning:
ROBERTS: You were talking about this surge. President Bush expected to surge troops from anywhere from 10,000 to 40,000 over the next few weeks in Iraq, mainly to get security in Baghdad. He has not confirmed that he's going to do it, but yesterday, in that press conference with Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, he did sort of tilt toward the idea that he's thinking about that, and here's what he had to say.
From the January 5 edition of CNN's Newsroom:
MALVEAUX: Well, that's right. Top changes in the military as well. And what we think this really reflects is the notion here -- what we are being told from sources from the Pentagon, not from the White House, is that the president is very likely to go ahead and sign off on a U.S. troop surge. Anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000 additional troops.
Those in the Pentagon who are now out were ones who did not want that troop surge. They were calling for less U.S. troops, more training with Iraqis. Those who are coming in seem to support this idea of a U.S. troop surge. So it underscores, really, what we're seeing here, the possibility of, really, a new approach to the Iraq policy.
[...]
HARRIS: So let's sort of -- Suzanne, let's sort of take a moment and recap here. So, it appears as though the president has floated all -- or the White House as floated all of the trial balloons it will float on this idea of a military surge. And with Ambassador [John] Negroponte in place [as deputy secretary of state], maybe we get a sense of the diplomatic surge to come as well.
From the January 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
DANA BASH [CNN congressional correspondent]: Senator John McCain, the Republican from Arizona, and also likely presidential candidate, he came out today as well, making clear what he wants. And what he said is that the idea of troops in Iraq should be -- is a good idea, more troops. He's been arguing for that for quite a long time. You would think that considering the fact that the president does -- is thinking about sending about 20,000 troops, we understand, that Senator McCain would be happy. But instead, what Senator McCain said is that the president should have more troops in Iraq and do it in a sustained way.
McCAIN [video clip]: This troop surge be significant and sustained, otherwise don't do it. It has to be significant and sustained, otherwise do not do it. Otherwise, there will be more needless loss of American lives.
The worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of U.S. forces. We've tried small surges in the past, and they've been ineffective because our commanders lacked the forces necessary to hold territory after it was cleared.
[...]
BLITZER: While the great surge debate, as it's being called, rages among political and military leaders, what do the American people think about adding additional troops instead of withdrawing them? For some answers, we'll turn, as we always do, to our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider -- Bill.
SCHNEIDER: Wolf, there is a lot of anxiety here in Washington in anticipation of the president's speech next week, all because of one word.
The first official use of the S-word came when the new defense secretary went to Iraq last month.
ROBERT GATES [secretary of defense]: We've discussed the possibility of a surge and the poss -- and the potential for what it might accomplish.
SCHNEIDER: The same day, President Bush was asked if he supports a surge in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.
BUSH: I'm just interested in the Iraqis' point of view, and then I'll report back to you as to whether or not I support a surge or not. Nice try.
SCHNEIDER: Why "surge"? Why not "escalate"? Because "surge" sounds temporary. Waves surge and decline. "Escalation" sounds long-term. President Lyndon Johnson escalated the deployment of U.S. troops to Vietnam in 1965. That war did not end for another 10 years. Whatever you call it, sending more troops would provoke a political firestorm.
[...]
HENRY: Wolf, the president plans to reveal his latest Iraq strategy in a prime-time address next week. We're expecting it to be Wednesday, though officials say it could slip to Thursday, depending on how all the final details are worked out. And officials saying privately the expectation, as you heard from Dana, is that the president is going to call for a troop surge, something in the neighborhood of about 20,000 U.S.troops.
The "surge" is an Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) wave.
Edward R. Murrow said, "Television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us."
What really upsets me is the way the White House plays around with Words. Wartime Rhetorical Strategies that will cause more of our troops to die in vain for George W. Bush.
They refuse to call it what it is, an escalation or an increase in troop strength that will supply more bodies to be killed IN VAIN and shipped back to grieving loved ones.
You won't see the bodies when they come home. The Bushies remember what happened during The Vietnam War when that coverage was allowed. It woke up our Nation to the human cost of war. Just like Vietnam our troops are still dying in vain today in Iraq.
So the Bushies open their Thesaurus and come forth with words like SURGE OR BUMP to make the death sentence of more troops sound somehow more acceptable.
A surge will just result in a temporary fix and will delay the Iraqis from standing up and defending themselves. I for one say we Cut the Budget for the escalation and Impeach George W. Bush if he continues to ignore the will of the people.
COUNTRIES BOMBED BY THE UNITED STATES SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II :
China 1945-46 Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War) Guatemala 1954 Indonesia 1958 Cuba 1959-1961 Guatemala 1960 Congo 1964 Peru 1965 Laos 1964-73 Vietnam 1961-73 (Vietnam War) Cambodia 1969-70 Guatemala 1967-69 Grenada 1983 Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets) Libya 1986 El Salvador 1980s Nicaragua 1980s Iran 1987 Panama 1989 Kuwait 1991 (Iraqi Targets) Iraq 1991- Somalia 1993 Bosnia 1994, 1995 (Bosnian Serb Targets) Sudan 1998 Yugoslavia 1999 Afghanistan 1998, 2001- Iraq: on and on and on
I thought it might be important to know the political party involved in those bombings. So, I went through your list and reported the party the current president was for each year you listed. If you add them up, Democrats presided over 37 years of bombings and Republicans presided over 37 years of bombings. It's a good thing you did not include WWII or WWI (that would have been very embarassing for current democratic anti-war stances). I'd be interested to know how many American lives were lost during those years while comparing Democratic ordered lives lost and Republican ordered lives lost. Maybe you can do that for us, too?
China 1945-46---Democrat, Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)---Democrat, Guatemala 1954---Republican, Indonesia 1958---Republican, Cuba 1959-1961---Republican/Democrat, Guatemala 1960---Democrat, Congo 1964---Democrat, Peru 1965---Democrat, Laos 1964-73---Democrat/Republican, Vietnam 1961-73 (Vietnam War)---Democrat/Republican, Cambodia 1969-70---Repubican, Guatemala 1967-69---Democrat, Grenada 1983---Republican, Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)---Republican, Libya 1986---Republican, El Salvador 1980s---Democrat/Republican, Nicaragua 1980s---Democrat/Republican, Iran 1987---Republican, Panama 1989---Republican, Kuwait 1991 (Iraqi Targets)---Republican, Iraq 1991---Republican, Somalia 1993---Democrat, Bosnia 1994, 1995 (Bosnian Serb Targets)---Democrat, Sudan 1998---Democrat, Yugoslavia 1999---Democrat, Afghanistan 1998---Democrat, 2001- Iraq---Republican
Holly's list of our history of war gets a response.
And it's to tally up a scorecard by political party and call it a draw.
I think that's what Jesus said, " Kill 'em all, just let the other side have a turn."
However, both world wars were left out. Probably because it would show that democrats have a more vivid history of warfare and killing our servicemen/women than anyone. It seems all the big conflicts were all run by democrats. I suppose that's why they were left out. It didn't want to be shown that democrats kill more of our young men and women than republicans in warfare that isn't our business.
Let's see...we had 116,000 deaths in WWI, in WWII we had 400,000 (half were against an enemy that actually attacked us), 50,000 in Korea and another 50,000 in Vietnam. Which gives us over 600,000 American troops killed in Democratic wars. And to think I hear a lot of grumbling about Bush's desire to go to war.
I think Jesus said this, also: "And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?"
Maybe I didn't realize how completely anti-war you are. I thought that you were minimizing Holly's list on a partisan basis, because it could divided up into Repub. and Dem led wars.
Until you referred to WWI and WWII as conflicts that were none of our business", I mistakenly assumed that you were as much a war cheerleader as the average conservative that comes here.
I don't think Holly omitted the two "big wars" as any sort of trick, but only because most Americans, even generally anti-war ones like myself, consider those justifiable.
I'm so used to Christians being the biggest war boosters, it surprised me to hear onw who is actually a complete pacifist. My apologies.
Didn't get the plank in my eye reference.
But what is important is the present. We're not able to change that which has already happened. We do have some say about what is happening today and what will happen tomorrow.
As of today, we are involved in a quagmire in Iraq. The options are escalation or withdrawal. More than 3000 of our countrymen and women have died. Tens of thousands have been wounded. Everyone who has spent time in the theater will bear the scars of war until the day they die.
Are you advocating allowing more Americans bear this burden or are you advocating that we come to our senses and say, enough?
Surely if people who are imprisoned for years with no end in sight can be "detainees", then an escalation can be a "surge".
I think the problem is that so many in media allow the administration to define the terms of every issue and repeat the administration's manipulative, Orwellian language verbatim as if reporters and editors had no independent knowledge of English.
Once an issue is defined as Karl Rove wants it defined, then every reporter repeats the same language every time they mention the issue and thereby play right into the administration strategy. Now we have the "surge" issue, and everyone pretends they can't imagine what else it could be called.
Since when does the President own our language?
I used to think Bush and friends had only a short-term perspective. However, while reading your post I realized my mistake. Consider this - what's a decade or a few of occupation or imprisonment for much of a lifetime compared to...oh...the age of the universe?
This is the same liberal media that had big "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and whatever- it was- "enduring Freedom" backgrounds made up for their newscasts withinn hours of the White House making up the names.
The same pinkos who describe Bush supporters as "Pro-Military" and would-be censors as "Pro-Family".
Ask the tortured, not the torturer. Ask the occupied, not the occupier.
It's romantic love for authority that is so dangerous to this country. The exterminationist wing of the Republican party have become willing slaves to lustful degenerate authoritarian manipulators. Their masters can justify any cruelty in the name of moral superiority.
Now, Proud Christian would Jesus instruct us to torture, kill and dominate our fellow humans?
With "surge" being used [by the media] to describe what's being floated by the White House. Like MOST of Bush's other Iraq policy it has NOT been cleary defined--as of yet. Long term or short term? Either way I'm hoping such an escalation of troops will be thwarted by Congress.
Kudos to Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the letter they sent Bush yesterday. A GREAT pre-emptive strike. Whether they were pressured into delivering such a letter [by the Cindy Sheehan gang OR by public opinion in general] it was STILL a brilliant move.
BTW if you read the [Reid/Pelosi] letter they ALSO refer to Bush's plan as a "surge".
Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed.
Of course the "surge" will only be temporary, and not something bad or long term like a true escalation. After all didn't Rummy tell us that the war could last 6 days, maybe 6 weeks but he doubted it would last 6 months-back in Feb 2003. Does the MSM ever question anything this administration says on the subject? Goodness gracious, golly gee, no! Just keep drinking the Kool-aid, CNN.
Happily, happily, happily onward,
All into the Valley of Iraq,
Rode the five (proposed) Brigades.
"Forward, the "surge" of five Brigades!"
Was the president or his advisors dismayed?
Not that the soldiers didn't know someone had blundered.
But it's not for them to make a reply, or to even reason why,
But to "surge" five Brigades into the Valley of Iraq.
An occupation without National Security concern to the U.S.,
Now "surged" and "escalated" in an act of pride and madness,
While all of America's People wondered.
An "insurgency" now met with a "surge",
And for what reason to do with U.S. National Security,
All the world and America's People wondered.
What sacrifices were made for the pride of a single man,
A single evil and perverted man,
Who devised the scheme (and the word) of "surge",
To save his evil self from "political embarrassment".
And so he kills our Sons and Daughters in the Valley of Iraq,
And makes a "surge" to avoid being "politically embarrassed".
But our Sons and Daughters in that place,
Have done nothing wrong and suffer no disgrace,
For their's was never to make a reply or even reason why,
Sacrifice is what they do in the name of U.S. National Security...
...found nowhere in Iraq.
When can their glory fade?
Oh the wild "surge" they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the "surge" they made,
Honor the five Brigades,
Noble Sons and Daughters of the American People,
Sacrificed not for the National Security
of their Mothers and Fathers,
But for the pride of a single man
George W. Bush
An evil SOB... an evil bastid.
I saw John Edwards talk here at Chapel Hill on Saturday Dec 30. He gave his standard speech. It was polished and well delivered.
Afterward, I followed him in the handshake line, and impetuously got in 5 questions and got some quick answers:
1) I asked him what he thought of Biden's plan to split Iraq up into 3 countries? He said he'd have to think about it some more. In his talk, he doesn't want to "surge" troops up, he wants to begin withdrawing them.
2) If we do environment regulations to reduce carbon etc, won't that put our business at a disadvantage compared to China which has no regulations? He agreed to that and he wants to renegotiate our treaties with China to take this into account. "We've given too much away," he said.
3) What can we do about North Korea and Iran making nuclear weapons since we spent so much of our effort in Iraq? "There's lots to do."
4) Would you retract Bremer's Medal of Freedom? He was surprised by this and apparently not aware of it. I explained that Bush gave Bremer the Medal of Freedom. In my opinion, Bremer was a disaster when he was in charge of Iraq. Edwards said, "You mean after all the damage he did? In one word, Yes."
5) Would you press criminal charges against people in high political office, as some Democrats would like to do? At this point Edwards said, "Well, I got to move on now..."
I also talked to his wife Elizabeth. I asked about her children in elementary school here, and I commented on her recent interview on the Diane Rhem's show. She said, "Marvelous."
That is what I like to hear!
Round up the 10-20 million illegal aliens roaming our streets
Fit them for uniforms, give them a gun and send them into Iraq. Talk about a surge! Talk about killing 2 birds with 1 stone.
Those that make it back get amnesty.
I work with some Republicans who get all the righty "humor" emails.
That plan was about a week and a half ago.
Republican humor is like a McDonalds burger; predictably bad enough when it's fresh, just worthless after a few days.
Let's make That 3 Birds with One Stone:
Because if you want to kill 10 to 20 million people you should have been hung to your death with Sadam.
People like you and Sadam and Hitler should all be exterminated for the good of the planet Earth.
If you think that was funny you are very wrong.
I did not get that from his post.
A very large number of our troops who are defending your right to spin your garbage jokes here are the Mexicans you want to send to Iraq.
They are proudly serving our country in Iraq. Many of them are already dead. That should make you happy.
illegal aliens are not just Mexicans. There are also many proud fillipino people there.
Let's round up all the supporters of the war and their children and send them. I doubt that they'd find the 20,000 for GW's "surge", but it would be a start.
Well,
WE now have a new term, 'SURGE' which denotes an added entry into the 'Orwellian' doublespeak so symptomatic of the times. After all, The NeoConmen have utilized such lexicon as ' Creative Destructionism' in describing the ill-fated venture to make a fractious, tribal-religious predominate BUT 'OIL-RICH" country like Iraq into something resembling a modern Jeffersonian Democracy.
SURGE, .... Def: "strong, wavelike, forward movement, rush, or sweep: the onward surge of an angry mob." Hmmm, About the only reference here that desribes OUR current situation in Iraq is the reference to an ' angry mob'.
Meanwhile, over at AEI, The American Enterprise Institute, Senators McCain and Joe 'turncoat' Lieberman are busy presenting positions which are irrefutably and diametrically opposed by the American people, the Pentagon Brass and according to the latest poll among OUR boots 'on the ground' , some 80% have stated NO, Nada, " Don't Do It."
But the NeoConmen are a tenacious breed indeed. Their visions of empire building , having been trumped and trounced in the Congressional elections for their self-serving policy of adding to their private coffers ....... are now scurrying like rats on a sinking ship ONLY to have THINK TANKS, NOW there's an oxymoron for ya, Like AEI offer up some Babble-talk with terms like 'surge' which I doubt that heretobefore is ever mentioned in the course instruction at the Army War College.
We now have Intellectual pygmies like Frederrick Kagan of AEI, announcing Position papers with calls to 'surge'
Here , take a look...... [link to www.washingtonpost.com]
Our foreign policy is NOW controlled by unelected personages in the likes of Kagan, et al WHO in a pitiful attempt to describe themselves as 'Intellectual Giants' with America's best interests at heart NOW announce with terminology like 'surge' WHAT the GENERALS, the American people and our brave lads and lasses know all too well,................. Any augmentation of troops to this ill-fated cause WILL only fuel further the mayhem and indigenous civil war.
But Kagan and the crew at AEI have OUR Best interests at heart, Yeh, right And I'm the Tooth Fairy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Pentagon is simply trying to hip-up the Iraq war, something that will appeal to the skateboard punk/daredevil Jackass (the movie) crowd.
SURGE!!!!
The recruitment angle is transparent as cellophane panties.
“Sign up, kiddies, come one, come all! It’s not just a job, it’s death, destruction, and above all, it's COOOOOOOOOL!”
I imagine a clip with various army vehicles and hellicopters rumbling across the Iraqi landscape with the following narration...
Surge...it's not just an energy drink!
lololol nice!