General

Semantics are important sometimes

Let’s take these two statements for example.

You’re a coward.

You’re acting like a coward.

The semantic difference between those statements is pretty big, with the first meant to be insulting and harsh, and the second more of a gentle, snap-out-of-it kind of thing. Between these two statements the actual words of Jean Schmidt lean toward the second and since she immediately followed up and said it wasn’t meant to be personal.

All that is partially a response to VikingSpirit, who has a thoughtful post on the subject, and also to sum up my thoughts on the matter.

My personal definition of a coward is someone who refuses to do what needs to be done out of concern for personal impact. Now that personally cannot apply to Murtha who did indeed serve in the military honorably.

But Murtha is also promoting a policy that advocates that the US stop providing security for elements in Iraq that need that support. and the reason for that is the impact of that policy on our armed forces. I’m not saying that the butcher’s bill not be a consideration in public planning, but the President makes decisions based on many factors, one of them is the cost of doing nothing.

In this case the cost of doing nothing was to leave Saddam in power, the terrorist training camps in Iraq in place and whatever it was that Saddam was up to with WMD’s alone. Clearly that had to stop.

The cost of leaving right now would be to abandon Iraq to the terrorists. I do not share Murthas optimistic view that we are keeping the Iraqi’s from stepping up and taking care of their own messes.

But Murtha’s view is that the cost of doing nothing right now is irrelevant, the big problem is that soldiers are dying and that this is the overriding factor over any others. I’ve read Murtha’s statements and watched a bit of the news shows this morning. Murtha does not have a decent definition of when the national interest requires war. He does not talk in those terms at all. His argument seems to be

1. That the current people running the war are screwing it up
2. There is nothing that can be further accomplished militarily in Iraq.
3. That the war is killing and injuring soldiers

Therefore we must leave ASAP.

The first may or may not be valid, but tactical problems mean tactical answers, not giving up.

The second part is misleading at best and a lie at worst. From providing security to clearing and holding positions, our military is doing a tremendous amount every day and are the best equipped and available units to do that mission right now. If our troops withdrew there would be large sections of Iraq run by former Baathists, terrorists and other such malcontents. No reasonable person denies this, but Murtha does. Making him the spokesperson of the Democratic party was a brilliant move for Bush and a springloaded trap the Dems just walked right into.

The third makes no sense except to provide emotional impact because every war kills and injures soldiers. This should not be a consideration unless the national interest does not outweigh the cost in blood. But again, Murtha does not talk about national interest.

It would be helpful if I knew what his definition of national interest was and what sort of events would trigger it. So to me, it’s Murtha’s proposed policy that is cowardly, because my definition fits.

© 2005 NixGuy.com.