Last night I watched a bit of the rerun of Secreatry Rice’s testimony in the Senate. I was particularly struck by her response to a question about why the administration has decided to not pursue negotiations with Iran and Syria as was advised by the ISG. She simply assumed an understanding of their position and said there was no point in talking to them. After all, they are the enemy and we have nothing to gain by giving them the opportunity to make demands that we have already decided are unacceptable.
This response got me thinking about the paradigm that is being used when talking about finding solutions to the situation in Iraq. The only way I can grasp that paradigm or an alternative is to think about the words we use.
So I decided to try and make a list of words I want to hear a lot less and those I would like to hear more often. Here’s what I came up with:
Words I’d like to hear less often
Enemy
Victory
Defeat
Evil
Forces
Troops
Terrorists
Surge
Weapons
Threat
Violence
Insurgents
Secure and hold
Unilateral
Win/Loose
Command
Extremist
Attack
Destroy
Border
Detainee
Rules of engagement
Homeland
Targets
Invade
Words I’d like to hear more often
Civility
Diplomacy
Compromise
Allies
Listen
Hear
Learn
Negotiate
Cooperation
Understand
Empower
Enhance
Humanity
Humanitarian
Support
Resources
Unite
Restore
Opportunity
Wisdom
Forgive
People
Humility
Is there some reason why words like this are unacceptable when talking about finding solutions to the situation in Iraq? If so, call me naive in continuing to “have a dream.”
I suspect that the reason its not seen as acceptable is that anyone using the words I’d like to hear more often would quickly be labelled a “girly man” and loose his/her “Alpha Male” credentials.
Anyway, there’s what I want to hear. Have any additions?
