Semantics and Sophistry

These two words carry a great deal of importance when it comes to Iraq. So it’s important to know their definitions.

Semantics has several meanings but I thought number four is the best for our example:
loosely deliberate distortion or twisting of meaning, as in some types of advertising propaganda, etc.

So the semantics of the civil war in Iraq is that it isn’t a civil war but sectarian violence, terrorism or a low level or low grade civil war (sort of like being a little pregnant).

Sophistry:
unsound or misleading but clever. plausible and subtle argument or reasoning

The sophistry comes in this way. The Pentagon doesn’t consider what’s going in Iraq as a civil war because the military has not gotten involved on one side or the other. The White House says it’s not a civil war because the targets of violence are random. Also the violence is not directed toward overthrowing the current government..

And I guess they are probably right. Because it seems to me that Iraq is not in a civil was but is descending into anarchy.

All the running around by the Bush administration since the election saying they are open to new ideas, seems to be meaningless. The Baker Commission is going to come up with ideas that will “save” the situation in Iraq.

Why do they think what they say or the plans they come up with or the regional leaders they meet with will have any difference. It seems even Sadr is having problems keeping events under control.

What’s needed now is thinking and planning for what to do when Iraq spins completely and totally out of control, if it is not already. That time is coming very soon and no sort of spin by anyone is going to change that.