There are times pogo, that I wish I could be as focused and concise as you.
I think I need an editor, and a fact checker, and I am definitely not asking for volunteers.
I think that part of the problem is sloganeering. This one phrase, "You can't legislate morality," resounds in my head all the time.
This blog entry explains the problems that creates, but it's something I have to deal with all the time.
http://dtww.blogspot.com/2004/11/why-you-cant-legislate-morality-and.htmlBefore you click on that, it is a discussion of the concept, and has next to nothing to do with the subject of finding a better way to express what we are doing in Iraq. If anything it is a step back from that issue. To the idea that slogans are problematic when debating specifics.
A good portion of my educational background is in linguistics. In fact, I spent a lot of time Reading Noam Chomsky on the subject of how language works, and know him better as a linguist than as a pacifist.
Language is, or rather was, before the internet, divided into two subgroups. One was, for lack of a better word, conversational language, and the other was written language. I think the internet, and spaces like this one, have created a middle ground between the two.
This is close to conversational language, it is quite informal, often hastily assembled and intended to spark conversation. But it is written, presented as a solitary expression, and generally more carefully constructed than an oral conversation ever would be.
In the arena of written language it is possible to reconsider what is to be published, and it is also generally more carefully put. Vocabulary expands, grammar is more carefully attended to. And the reader has time to parse what is said.
I do write, and have written most of my life, in a "conversational" style. I have a lot of experience putting speeches together. Slogans are great in spoken communication. They get an immediate response. But they are worthless when trying to express an idea.
"War on terror" has a meaning. It is like the word "food" in some respects. If you say food, it can mean beans or it can mean lobster thermador. When you say "war on terror" it can mean the quiet, covert investigation of who and where and when, or it can mean the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Using the phrase blurs the meaning of what you have to say.
To carry on a debate, or a negotiation, it is necessary to be precise in how you express the meaning of what you want to present.
I can agree with GW Bush on the topic of preventing terror attacks. We need to do that, and we need to do it all the time. If there were no need to prevent terrorism, locks on doors would be unnecessary. Guns would be seen as only instruments for getting meat. There would be no justification for building an arsenal of democracy (to use another slogan) because democracy would be safe from attack.
I think that Bush, and the propaganda machine that supports the War on Iraq has corrupted the meaning of "war on terror" by using it to describe the invasion of Iraq. And, I think that corruption of meaning has become part of the vernacular of political discussion. We do need to combat Terrorism. We don't need to occupy Iraq to do that. By linking the two the propagandist makes the war in Iraq justifiable to the people who succumb to the slogan.