The Daily Background

Greg Mitchell over at E&P has a great column this week titled “Surge Protectors.” In it, he examines the media’s coverage of Bush’s “surge” plan, specifically focusing on the language used. Do they continue to use the word “surge” as the Pentagon does and the Administration is expected to- or do they use the more apt but negative term escalation? Mitchell writes that it’s trending towards the latter, and concludes that it’s more accurate:

There are several problems with this, of course. For one thing, who is to say, in advance, that this will actually prove to be a mere “surge” of troops versus a long-term buildup? What is the time limit for a “surge” to recede before it seems semi-permanent? A few months, as the White House has suggested? Or a year or more, as some of its outside backers demand, saying anything less would be futile?

Mitchell also gives credit where credit is due:

With liberal bloggers leading the way, the call went forth last week: Henceforth ye shall purge the “surge” from your vocabularies and laptops and replace it with “escalation” – with all its echoes of Vietnam and, incidentally, accuracy regarding the current situation. Gradually, it has started to creep into the mainstream media and now candidates or possible candidates for president are heeding the call.

The first analysis that challenged the “surge” narrative came from the blogosphere. And it’s travelled around remarkably quickly, I’m frankly surprised how fast the politicians (well, Democrats at least)have adjusted their rhetoric to fit that coming from bloggers. Continues E&P:

Barack Obama issued a press release today opposing any more troops for Iraq, under the headline: “Escalation Is Not the Answer.” And former Sen. John Edwards, announcing his candidacy today in New Orleans, came out against the “surge” but called it by its proper name: “It is a mistake for America to escalate the war in Iraq.”

But forget the politicians. Newspaper editorial writers should crib from the closing graf of The Sun editorial instead: “The strategists arguing for an escalation in Iraq seem to begin their reasoning this way: First, assume success. Then everything else should follow quite neatly and predictably. But the American people dropped that assumption some time ago, and they made it abundantly clear on Nov. 7. The war in Iraq has become a nightmare that is darker and more disconcerting than even the horrifying and wrenching events of 9/11 - and it is a nightmare with no end in sight.”

Yeah, hopefully the media will continue this trend towards skepticism about the Administration’s upcoming escalation announcement. Funny, word leaked out about the President’s plan to increase troop levels in Iraq so early that it’s already had time to age enough that people are already a bit jaded about it. One wonders if the word “surge” will be retired by the time Bush makes his big Iraq policy speech expected sometime before next month’s January 23rd State of the Union Address.

By the way, I’ve been maintaining what has become quite an extensive list of generals, experts and politicians who disagree with the idea of escalating the Iraq conflict by sending more American troops in, which you can read here.

Filed under: News Media, Iraq Related, Z-TDB Blog