Phil Goldsmith has held senior positions in a broad spectrum of fields including law, journalism, business and government. Most recently he was managing director of the City of Philadelphia.
He is now a columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News, writing every other Wednesday and is a principal in GoldsmithKahn Associates, a public issues management consulting firm.
I am fascinated by the use of the word "surge" in all the discussions about the President's impending new Iraq strategy. Who ever coined the word within the White House's spin machine deserves much credit. And the media, which has religiously used the word ever since, deserves many demerits.
What is really being talked about is whether the number of US troops in Iraq should be increased or, put another way, should our role be expanded.
But the words "increase" or "expand" are to be avoided at all costs since it means our commitment to an unpopular and so far unsuccessful war is increasing, contrary to the body politic's desire.
So Karl Rove or one of his disciples decided on using the word "surge" instead. Perhaps, it is because the word "surge" implies a more temporary nature than "increase" or "expand" that it has become the word of preference.
For political spinmeisters to use it is one thing but for the media to adopt it belies its responsibility to shed light on public policy discussions. What is being discussed, quite simply, is whether we should increase the number of U.S. troops--25,000 to 40,000-in Iraq and place them in harms way.
To show you how fallacious it is to use the word "surge" what word would be used when there is a reduction in US troops--desurge? No,the word would be "decrease." And that's why the word used now should be "increase."
