Monday, December 12, 2005

Withdrawal vs. Redeployment

Amanda B. Carpenter of Human Events asks some prominent Dems about their take on remarks made by Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md), that withdrawal of American forces from Iraq would be a disaster, leading to civil war there, and creating a haven for terrorists. Read as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca), Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex) all dance around the issue of "withdrawal" vs. "redeployment", with dear Nancy sounding rather incoherent on the entire subject (not to mention being rather long winded in her verbal "dance" around the issue).

What is the difference between the two concepts? In this particular context, none. If we "redeploy" our forces from Iraq, we will essentially be withdrawing our forces! As a matter of fact, let me provide you with a definition of the word "withdrawal".

From
Dictionary.com, we find that "withdrawal" means

1. The act or process of withdrawing, as:
a. A retreat or retirement.
b. Retreat of a military force in the face of enemy attack or after a defeat. [Emphasis mine]

On the other hand, "redeployment" usually (but not always) infers the transfer of military forces from one combat zone to another combat zone. Surely, they aren't suggesting that we "redeploy" our forces from Iraq to Afghanistan (which is currently the only other active combat zone in the region)? I think not. No, they are merely playing the semantics game, to make themselves sound less like the defeatists they truly are, using the word "redeployment" instead of what they really want to say - "retreat" - so they look "good" to their constituents. Their semantic game playing is dishonest, and their dishonesty is shameful.

No comments: