I’ve started noticing something interesting involving the power of words and terminologies lately. Here are a few examples and a clumsy segue:
'Secularism' isn’t the opposite of religion or spiritualism… honestly; it’s the desire for an absence of religion and religion-based value judgments from government. Recently ‘secular’ has turned into a denigration thrown about by the modern religious entities, including politicians. Its curious to me that such a term, its utilization prescribed clearly in the first amendment, can be twisted like this.
Another example of the twisting of a words’ meaning to fit into a political or religious lexicon is the term
‘Liberal’. Politically speaking, it wasn’t until the 80’s that the term picked up its negative connotation, literally stepping up into popular use to replace the term
‘Communist’ when it became convenient.
There’s no doubt about it: words have power. But it’s not always about obfuscation or ridiculous political shenanigans. Sometimes its about trust and mood.
The last example is
‘Civil War’. Recently the mainstream media have decided to call a duck a duck and use the term ‘Civil War’ to describe the sectarian violence in Iraq.
"use the term ‘Civil War’ to describe the sectarian violence in Iraq..."
Firstly, kudos to the Times and NBC news for stepping up to the plate and doing the job by publicly stating that they wouldn’t be a part of a semantic, hair-splitting argument with this country’s imperious leader. Secondly, no one who has been paying attention could, in any honesty, describe the ass-hattery in Iraq as anything but a full-fledged civil war. That being said, I was sorta hoping the subterfuge would hold, at least for a while longer.
You see, when you make a big deal about a name-change or a terminology shift, you tend to create a spectacle and attract attention, which is, I am sure, the point. The problem is this: We, as a national collective, are responsible for the instability in Iraq.
"...one of the greatest falsehoods... is that America is thankful for her soldiers’ service..."
Yeah, we went under false pretenses, yup, the post-war was (and IS being) grossly mishandled and (/sigh) yeah, one of the greatest falsehoods perpetrated on the American heartland today is that America is thankful for her soldiers’ service. None of that changes the simple truth that, like it or not, Iraq is a reality and our nation is responsible. And now, with this latest shift in terminology, we have given ourselves the long lost exit strategy, the ‘out’ from the situation that we have all been looking for: Dubya’s ‘cut and run’ come to terrible reality.
Confused? I will explain. Here’s the power of these words: by definition, a ‘Civil War’ is an INTERNAL matter, resolvable only through internal (see: Iraqi) means and without external influence. As though the west would have ANY viable influence in the area if simply left tomorrow, ja? With the terminology’s popular use comes the inevitable sentiment that we should just leave and let them sort it all out.
Doing this would be madness, just as idiotic as picking the fight to begin with. The long-term humanitarian effects would be catastrophic as there still are not even basic services running reliably and the only independent aid organization, the Red Cross, is a very popular target for kidnapping and murder. But that’s not the worst reason.
"...(prematurely leaving Iraq) would be madness... The long-term humanitarian effects would be catastrophic..."
The most compelling reason is, sadly, strategic. Say that stabilization happens overnight, immediately after we withdraw our troops and in spite of the lack of western ‘aid’. This means that they either subjugated their enemies or, worse, they realized that the differences between their ideologies were slight enough to overlook. You would now have an openly hostile, aggressive nation sitting on 2/3 of the petroleum reserves in the Middle East… sitting next door to an historical enemy of the west with strong religious and cultural ties to its populous. This very situation is the reason why we didn’t depose Saddam Hussein in 1991. It’s also the reason why we helped put him into power in the first place.
Folks, we as a nation have an opportunity now to do what’s right by owning up to our collective mistakes. Its only a sad coincidence that supporting the mission means the same (superficially) as supporting Dubya. Our troops deserve better treatment, their sacrifices should not be diminished through intellectual legerdemain and the people of Iraq deserve their shot at peace and a better tomorrow. Particularly because we are responsible for their crappy 'today'.
p.s.
Speaking of the power of words, Kramer dropping the N-bomb on a couple hecklers isn’t the end of the world, hell, its barely even news. There are more important things we should be discussing atm (see above) and it seems to me that hypocritical sensitivity to idiotic name calling shouldn’t even be on a rational adult’s radar.
