You are herecontent / Don’t Think of a U.S. Soldier, Unarmed, Abandoned in Iraq’s Civil War!

Don’t Think of a U.S. Soldier, Unarmed, Abandoned in Iraq’s Civil War!


By Jeff Cohen, AfterDowningStreet.org

One need not be a linguist like George Lakoff to know that it’s hard to win a debate on the other guy’s assumptions. Or worse, the other guy’s lies.

For years Team Bush has sought to shroud their devastating and deepening Iraq occupation in the myth of troop protection. When they doled out contracts to Halliburton and Blackwater, it was about “funding the troops.” Even as VA health services were threatened, it was about “funding the troops.” Every yearly extension of the Iraq occupation is about “funding the troops.”

As Democratic leaders in Congress moved to hoist the white flag of surrender this week – giving Bush/Cheney billions more for Iraq without any timeline for withdrawal – we heard Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeatedly assuring the media that before Memorial Day, “We will have legislation to fund the troops!”

The shared pretense of the White House and Democratic leaders is that funding the Iraq occupation is somehow a program on behalf of the troops. Like a subsidy for family farmers.

Instead of challenging this misleading rhetoric by saying “The only way to support the troops is by ending an unwinnable occupation and fully funding a safe withdrawal,” Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid proclaims, “We will never abandon our troops in a time of war.” Along with the utterly confused: “No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats.”

What Democrats need to be saying, repeatedly, is that it’s Bush/Cheney who abandoned several thousand U.S. troops to avoidable deaths in a disastrous occupation, and tens of thousands to horrible injuries. And that they’re willing to abandon still more troops to unnecessary death and injury. Democrats also need to talk about polls that consistently show most U.S. troops in Iraq support withdrawal, as do most Iraqis.

As Military Families Speak Out says: “Funding the war is not supporting our troops. The way to support our troops is to bring them home now and take care of them when they get here.”

Yet Democratic leaders are helping Bush/Cheney win the linguistic argument by pledging they won’t “abandon the troops.” The image Republicans want to plant in our head is that of a U.S. solider abandoned, unarmed on an Iraqi mean street. And that’s exactly the image Democratic rhetoric keeps reinforcing. They’re on the “Don’t Think of an Elephant!” defensive.

I’m well aware that recent Congressional proposals to withdraw combat troops did not win a majority (receiving 171 votes in the House and 29 in the Senate) – let alone the 2/3 needed to override a Bush veto. But one reason for their defeats is that Democrats are fighting the Iraq debate on enemy terrain.

Another reason is that dozens of Democrats in Congress, including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, seem bent on endless war. With such Democrats, don’t bother challenging their rhetoric. Better to challenge them in next year’s primaries.

* *

Jeff Cohen http://jeffcohen.org is a media critic, recovering TV pundit, and a consultant for Progressive Democrats of America http://pdamerica.org His latest book is Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media.

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Reid statement "We will never abandon our troops in a time of war" essentially reinforces the administration's message three ways: It reinforces and validates the (false) idea that if we don't give Bush whatever he wants, we're 'abandoning the troops', it creates the false impression that Bush=Troops, that supporting Bush is supporting the troops, and by not supporting Bush, we don't support the troops (talk about a no-win situation) and it reinforces the idea that we're 'at war'- we're not.

Being at war means to face off with another country's military- we are (supposedly) BUILDING Iraq's military, not attacking them, so how can we be at WAR with them?! We don't even know who the enemy is- it's not the Shia, it's not the suni, it's not the kurds, who is it? the insurgents?! an insurgent is someone who militarily overthrows the established government. Now let me see... Iraq had an established government, one that we propped up for many years- and yes, that government was militarily overthrown... by... oh. so who are the insurgents?

The idea of war has all sorts of presuppositions of its own- noble cause, defending freedom and the american way, heroes, and so on.
What we are engaged in is obviously NOT a war. So what do we call it? How about calling it what it is- the hostile and unprovoked overthrow and occupation of a sovereign nation. Suddenly, it doesn't sound quite so noble, does it? And what are we doing down there now? We all know how much the conservatives love nation-building, right?

Baby step: every time you catch yourself talking about 'war', stop youself and use the word 'occupation'.

I know that people get annoyed with my constant harping on these seemingly petty language issues, but it is CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT. The neocons know this. they've managed to control the language, and against all odds, they have gotten their own way at every turn- they understand the importance of framing issues, the democrats don't. Until we understand this, we will continue to be ineffective in countering the neocon agenda. This is NOT petty.

Drysdale

P.S.- for anyone who is unfamiliar with George Lakoff, listen to any of his speeches or read any of his books- Thom Hartmann is another great resource. Robert Dilts, Richard Bandler, John Grinder, while not writing specifically about politics but about language processing in general, will give you the tools you need to be FAR MORE EFFECTIVE. I can't overemphasize this point. I think people would be appalled if they knew how often they are trying to argue against the neocons, but are actually strengthening the neocon message.

D

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

CHOOSE LANGUAGE

Support This Site

Donate.

Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.

 

Sponsors:

Speaking Truth to Empire

***

Families United

***

Ray McGovern

***

Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.

 

Ads:

Find the perfect Purple Bridesmaid Dresses for your bridesmaids from Queeniebridesmaid.co.uk

 

*****

 

Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on Ca-Dress.com

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.