Afghan debaters choose their words carefully

Liberal antiwar activist groups are calling it an escalation, a provocative word evoking Vietnam, military failure, and endless war. Those who back the president talk of a surge, echoing the popular strategy employed in Iraq and implying only a temporary increase in boots on the ground.

At stake is public opinion, a critical factor in Obama’s war plan and the key to his political future. With the Pentagon announcing yesterday that the first wave of additional troops will deploy this month, the debate over how to frame the strategy is likely to intensify.

“ ‘Surge’ says, ‘It’s going to get better and we will get out.’ ‘Escalation’ says, ‘Forget it. It’s going to get worse and worse,’ ’’ said George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at University of California-Berkeley who specializes in political language.

And public opinion is “extraordinarily important’’ in determining whether Obama has time to execute his plan, said Rick Nelson, a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “It’s one of the pieces of the debate that hasn’t really been discussed. The American people are conflicted on this.’’

According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, escalation is “an increase in extent, amount, volume, and intensity,’’ while “surge’’ is defined as “to rise and fall actively.’’ Both words describe a quantity or action that will go up, but only “surge’’ connotes that it will also go down.

“The debate over language is a debate over whether this strategy is going to be successful - whether it is going to be like the president says - or whether it is going to be a disaster, like Vietnam,’’ Lakoff said.

A new poll shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans agree with the president that Afghanistan is a linchpin for the nation’s security; a clear majority also believe that a stalemate - not victory - over the Taliban and Al Qaeda is the most likely outcome. The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released yesterday found that 64 percent believe that the “safety and security’’ of the United States are at stake.

Only 29 percent predicted victory, compared with 57 percent who foresee a stalemate and 12 percent outright defeat.

Yesterday, the nation’s highest-ranking military officer, Joint Chiefs chairman Michael Mullen, told soldiers at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, including many bound for Afghanistan, that he expects casualties to rise next year as reinforcements arrive.

If public support erodes and the war drags on, Obama could be forced to abandon his plan, which could cripple his presidency, Nelson said.

“History has shown that Americans are very committed to the use of military force when the goal is clear and achievable,’’ he added. Obama “has to continue to clarify to the American people why we are over there.’’

In defending the president’s plan to add troops by next summer and start withdrawing them a year later, top administration officials, including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, repeatedly reminded Congress last week that adding reinforcements in 2007 helped decrease violence and build stability in Iraq.

Gates, who was defense secretary under President George W. Bush during the Iraq surge, called Obama’s strategy a surge while selling it in a round of Sunday talk-show appearances. To reassure Afghanistan and Pakistan, Gates and other top administration officials, however, also said that any troop pullout starting in July 2011 would be slow and timed to the ability of Afghan forces to take over security.

But foes of Obama’s strategy insist that “escalation’’ is a more appropriate, and intentionally provocative, comparison to Vietnam.

“ ‘Surge,’ in a way, means nothing,’’ said Brian Becker, national coordinator for the antiwar group ANSWER. “In the public consciousness, the surge led to a diminution or decrease of US casualties in Iraq, so they feel good about that.’’

“Words, as important as they are, can hide reality or reveal reality,’’ he added.

Code Pink, another antiwar group, has come up with a slogan: “Hopeless Escalation.’’

“For us, the truth of the matter is we are deepening our involvement and military obligation to stay in Afghanistan with no clear end in sight,’’ said Gael Murphy, a group cofounder.

“Yes, ‘escalation’ evokes Vietnam, but it is also used to not be duped that this new investment in Afghanistan is a short-lived thing,’’ Murphy said. “It’s absolutely alarming. And we don’t think it’s a false alarm.’’