Surrender

Dec. 19th, 2006 11:35 am
prog: (monkey)
[personal profile] prog
I just heard this exchange on an NPR program:

Speaker A (a think-tanker): You want to surrender to every country in the region.
Speaker B (a general): It's not a surrender, it's a strategic withdrawal.
Speaker A: [Derisive laughter.] Oh, I apologize then.

Who just lost the argument? I'm not sure.

In reality I'm peeved at A for callously dismissing the distinction between the two terms, which have a world of difference to a military man like B.

But if B had said what he said in, say, a movie, it would definitely be used to show how foolish he is, willing to niggle semantically around the plain fact of his army's defeat, and A's laughter would have echoed the audience's.

I suppose that you could say "Well, jmac, this isn't a movie." And I would say, "Isn't it?" Then there'd be a beat where we looked at each other in silence, and then you'd slap me. And I'd go Ooooh! like Curly and start crying.

Date: 2006-12-19 05:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] metahacker.livejournal.com
Augh. Knowing nothing else, my opinion is that A is a moron. Surrendering means you yield your government to an opponent and get captured (or killed, since you were ignoring the Geneva Conventions anyway).

Now, the typical conflation is "retreat" with "strategic withdrawal". These are different, but much more subtly. Withdrawal, of whatever type, involves removing your troops from the combat area; retreats involve more running, and possibly leaving war materiel behind; strategic withdrawals involve you pulling out at a pace set by you.

This lesson brought to you by "All the damn milspeak I'm supposed to be writing today", and the letter "RUN!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, MONTRESSOR!".

Date: 2006-12-19 05:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] prog.livejournal.com
This was the point in the program when I lost all respect for the think-tanker's argument (he's a leading voice in the movement for a "surge"). If he dismisses the difference between these two things, I don't think he has any right to talk about military deployment strategy. OTOH I did wonder if he did in fact get cinematic victory points by manipulating the general to say what he said and then laughing at him.

Date: 2006-12-19 11:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] xymotik.livejournal.com
Praytell, is this "surge" the guy wants going to be led by think-tankers applying their debating skills to IEDs?

RAGE.

Date: 2006-12-20 03:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kahuna-burger.livejournal.com
I got in a similar argument with a dork on a messageboard (who actually claimed to be military himself) who kept saying anyone who wasn't gung ho for Iraq wanted to "surrender and retreat". I got pendantic on his ass, both asking who we were going to go and negotiate the terms of our surrender with (and what we would give them for the right to lose) and pointing out that retreating and surrendering were actually mutually exclusive options for when you are losing.

Date: 2006-12-20 03:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] prog.livejournal.com
The difference between the messageboard dork and the think-tanker radio guest is that one of them isn't writing articles that influence presidential policy.

Date: 2006-12-20 12:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] misuba.livejournal.com
You could always say "Isn't it?" and then make little square-bracket shapes in the air with your fingers and say, "derisive laughter."

August 2022

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28 293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 9th, 2025 01:16 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios