It appears to me that the Department of Defense will soon be
engaged in a redefinition exercise, this time relating to footwear. In George
Orwell’s novel, 1984 (ah, those were
the days), one perfectly respectable occupation for scribblers was rewriting
history so that it was always in line with political orthodoxy. Similarly,
these days, it would seem equally respectable to redefine things in order to
adjust reality to the pronouncements of our highest leadership.
The other day President Obama pronounced that he will not
put American boots on the ground in Iraq. Okay. Got that. Today, however, we
are told that some 300 American “advisers” will be arriving in Iraq. They will
be divided into teams of 12 each and stationed with Iraqi army units at various
levels, suggesting that some at least will be very close to sites of actual
armed combat.
And this calls for definitional changes. The simplest would
be to rename “boots on the ground” “shoes on the ground.” No boots—the
President said so. But combat shoes might be permissible. The other way might
be to make a distinction between “advisers” and “soldiers”; under this
definition, “adviser boots” are okay, but “soldier boots” are not. Another way
to match fact to policy might be to issue sneakers, sandals, or (fortified)
slippers to the 300 advisers so that “no boots on the ground” would become
irrelevant.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.