The following blog was posted on The Pine Blog by a contributor named kfg. I thought I’d share it with Lone Star Times because it begs to ask the question: Do politicians understand their own rhetoric on the Iraq war?

Speaking of Military by kfg

Speechifying on the Iraq war is tricky. Sound bites don’t really work on this tough, complex issue. So here’s a guide to help decode politicians’ statements like these:

“It is time to end this war so that we can redeploy our forces to focus on the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and all those who plan to do us harm.” (source)

“The responsibility of Congress should be to continue our support for U.S. soldiers in harm’s way in Iraq … by demanding a plan to strategically redeploy out of harm’s way before the end of this year.” (source)

“Out of harm’s way” (OOHW) - Usually means out of Iraq. But, as much as we want them to be safe, is it Congress’ job to keep the troops OOHW? What about national security, and the separation of powers? Where is OOHW? And can you support the troops (see below) while believing they should remain in Iraq?

“Redeploy the troops” - The Military Dictionary says redeploy means either transfer to another operation or return home. Redeploying troops to Afghanistan doesn’t keep troops OOHW, redeploying to Okinawa probably does. A vague “redeploy” probably means bring them home, but it sounds more military.

“Focus on the terrorists” - No politician can afford to ignore terrorists, so most advise focusing on them. But where, and how? Terrorists are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, London, Indonesia, Morocco; widespread, and by definition not OOHW. Would any more focused operations — secret strikes, freezing terrorist funds, or detaining suspected terrorists — be permitted by NY Times’ editor-security experts?

“End this war” - Leave Iraq to its own devices; shorthand for ending U.S. participation in the war. Most politicians want a stable, nonviolent Iraq, but few have any serious plan to end the war. It’s sticky: they’re not prophets, they can’t control Iraqis, and they’ve condemned every error in judgment. Therefore, what happens if/when we leave is Not a Topic. Exception: Joe Lieberman.

“Civil war” - No agreed definition; a bad place for U.S. troops, definitely not OOHW. Usually means longstanding sectarian violence involving high civilian death counts. May exist in Iraq now, or may follow “end this war.” Related: Darfur, Sudan.

“Support the troops” - The trickiest one of all. Well-meaning people support the troops in different ways, so let’s ask the troops. The annual Military Times Poll of active duty troops shows who THEY think supports them:

3) How do you think each of these groups views the military?

Civilians

Very or somewhat favorably 86% (good!)

Very or somewhat UNfavorably 13%

Politicians

Very or somewhat favorably 57%

Very or somewhat UNfavorably 41%

News Media

Very or somewhat favorably 39%

Very or somewhat UNfavorably 60% (not good)

And 69% disagree that “Congress has my best interests at heart.” Maybe Congress would poll higher by talking to us as if we are real people.