Wednesday, December 27, 2006
when i get in trouble with language the fate of the world is what's at stake:
Echoing Yglesias and Chris Hayes From The Bronx: this is not a surge. This is escalation. Just look at Keane and Kagan:

The United States faces a dire situation in Iraq because of a history of half-measures. We have always sent "just enough" force to succeed if everything went according to plan. So far nothing has, and there's no reason to believe that it will. Sound military planning doesn't work this way. The only "surge" option that makes sense is both long and large.

But K & K themselves are half-steppin'. They argue against a surge in substance, but call their plan a surge as well, since they know that what they actually endorse -- escalation -- is vastly more unpalatable to the public.

Well, enough of this. Liberals, journalists, I'm calling on you. We must never talk about a surge unless we're actually talking about a surge -- a temporary infusion of troops. We should resist that as well. But now, if the proponents of escalation have escalation on their agenda, we must bring this out in the open and defeat it. Deal?
--Spencer Ackerman
John Edwards called it 'escalation' this morning.

Who knows, it may yet be possible to force the MSM to use words that bear some relation to reality.
Blogger low-tech cyclist | 11:17 AM