Cant Keep Quiet!

Surge

1 : to rise and fall actively : TOSS {a ship surging in heavy seas}
2 : to rise and move in waves or billows : SWELL {the sea was surging}
3 : to slip around a windlass, capstan, or bitts — used especially of a rope
4 : to rise suddenly to an excessive or abnormal value {the stock market surged to a record high}
5 : to move with a surge or in surges {she surged past the other runners}

The word surge indicates a temporary increase in something. A quick movement forward or up quickly followed by a retreat. Surge does not mean to rise to a particular point and then stay there.

Bush talked about a “surge” in the troops in Iraq. By using that word he implied that the troop numbers would rise quickly by 20,000 and would then drop down to the current numbers.

That’s what he implied by the word surge. That’s not what he said in his speech Wednesday night.

Nowhere in Bush’s address was the word timetable mentioned. Nowhere. Follow the link to the transcript above and do a search for the word timetable. You won’t find it. Nor will you find “time table.”

The link takes you to the government’s website so there can be no claim that some liberal has cut that word or words from the speech. They just aren’t there.

I know, you’re thinking “But Bush said our commitment was not open-ended.” True. But something not being open-ended does not mean that there is a definite timetable. School is not open-ended. You start in kindergarten and you will end 13 years later. Or maybe 17. Or 20. Or more. Or less for that matter. School will eventually end meaning it is not open-ended. However you don’t surge through school for 13 or more years.

A benchmark is also not a timetable. You can legally drink at 21 making that age a benchmark. It doesn’t mean that you have 21 years to become a fully mature adult. That would be more of a timetable. We all know people who were not a fully mature adult at 21 and even older.

Since there is no timetable, no drawing down of troops after the “surge” of 20,000 additional numbers in Iraq, I say that we should not use the word “surge” to describe Bush’s plan. It is a troop increase. A potentially very long term troop increase. It sure as hell isn’t a surge.

And while we are at it, let’s stop calling this a change in plans and/or policy in Iraq. The goals have not changed. I didn’t hear anything in Bush’s speech that sounded like a change that hasn’t been tried or talked about as part of their policy before (remember he increased troops by overlapping units in 2005 for the elections). What I did hear were tweaks to the same old policy. The only real difference seems to be in the terminology that the administration is using to talk about the war.

There was real big difference in policy Wednesday night. Not once in his address did he mention trying to diplomatically deal with Iran and Syria. In fact Bush specifically used the terminology “seek out and destroy” in regards to both nations.

We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

Apparently that was included to justify the U.S. attack on an Iranian consular office in the northern Iraqi Kurdish city of Arbil while Bush was giving his speech. According to Iran, the U.S. troops arrested 6 people including Iranian diplomats.

A consulate of any country is considered to be the territory of that country no matter where in the world it is located. Technically, it would mean that during Bush’s speech we were invading Iran.

No, surge is definitely not the correct term to describe Bush’s troop increase. There’s nothing temporary about his plans.

Cross posted on Bring It On!