In an autocratic government, the wording is everything. Such administrations lie so casually that the only true communication is the words between the lines, stated just ambiguously enough so that all parties can deny the meaning if challenged. Interpreting the news from the old Soviet Union was an art form, and we still look closely at the over-the-top pronouncements from North Korea to try to get a sense of what is actually on their mind. One of the “tells” that you should read between the lines is an awkward use of language, a verbal or written “nudge and wink” that lets you know that there is something to which you “in the know” should pay attention and interpret the words in a different way than anybody else.
Today, it was announced that Mike Pompeo was going to meet with Mohammed bin Salman, who is widely believed by just about everybody to have ordered the gruesome killing and coverup of a once favored journalist who had turned on the autocratic regime.
Although Jamal Khashoggi has been remembered for his criticism of the war in Yemen and the crown prince’s crackdown on dissidents and activists, the troubles for the Washington Post columnist actually began in late 2016, when he criticized recently elected President Donald Trump…
"When his advisers show him the map, will he realize supporting Putin means supporting the Iranian agenda?" Khashoggi asked.
(See what I did there?)
A killing that would have been one of (apparently) many deaths of those who stand in the way of the Saudi autocratic regime turned sour when it was stupidly carried out in the Turkish embassy. Trump has criticized the killing — because it was "the worst cover-up in history." Now Pompeo is going to meet with the Prince who almost assuredly directed the killing (you don't go ‘rogue’ in an autocracy if you value your neck) and has some words for him.
The first words are that the United States “value(s) human rights all across the globe" and called the murder of Khashoggi "outrageous.” It is not clear if it was outrageous because they chopped apart a living man with a bone saw, or if it was because of the historically inept coverup. The next words are “And then we'll talk about all the important things we do with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and all the support they provide to keep Americans in Kansas and Colorado and California and in Washington, DC, safe.” This is, of course, a clear signal that the Americans care nothing about this “outrageous” killing. This should surprise nobody who has been following the first season of the Trump regime’s antics. Where it gets interesting is his next choice of words:
But this relationship, this mutually beneficial relationship to create stability in the Middle East and to assist the United States in executing things that keep the American people safe is very important. And I'm convinced the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be a great ally in doing so.
That is not a normal use of the English language. In fact it is about as tortured a sentence as I have seen since Sarah Palin, and Pompeo is no Palin. Now most of us here speak English pretty well so I will not belabor this point, but this is exactly that little verbal “tell” that I was talking about earlier. If I were to tell you “let’s execute Robert…..’s plan” you would laugh because clearly the meaning that comes to your mind first is that we are going to kill Robert. There are few words that go with “executing” that make any sense at all (“plan”, “code”, “play”), and in almost all cases they are awkward constructions that are rarely used (except by computer nerds). “Help executing things” makes no sense at all unless you are talking about killing “things”, which to a sociopath is exactly what other people are.
This is not necessarily intentional, but in a statement that says pretty explicitly that the United States considers the murder of a journalist worth at most a mild tongue lashing a few words, the use of this awkward “assist the United States in executing things” represents at least a guilty conscience, and at worst quite possibly is a signal that we want more of these “things” executed.
Words matter. April Glaspie (who happens to have been a hell of a better diplomat than Pompeo) famously told Saddam Hussein
We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.
Although she was excoriated for accidently causing the Iraq war, she was in fact relaying exactly what here instructions were. Nobody was going to say openly that the US wanted Saddam to attack Kuwait but these words said exactly that. The awkward phrasing was intentional; Kuwait and America are not “associated”, they are not our friends, we will not defend them. Of course such subtlety was not necessary to communicate with a man who had troops on the border in Kuwait and had just mentioned his desire to have “all” of Iraq, but it was that sort of disguised message that diplomats automatically employ.
The message to the Prince is unmistakable.