This is the 5TH "Surge" in Iraq

By the end of this evening, the spin machines by all sides will be in full tilt -- as the LA Times said earlier todayas the LA Times said earlier today

Storm rises over 'surge'
Critics say the term is misleading because the Iraq buildup could be protracted. Military officials disagree.

By Johanna Neuman, Times Staff Writer
January 10, 2007

WASHINGTON — Is it a "surge?" Is it an "escalation?" Is it harmless semantics? Is it disingenuous spin?

One thing is clear: Using the word "surge" to describe President Bush's forthcoming plan for reshaping U.S. efforts in Iraq has ignited a fiery political brouhaha.

It seems relevant to look at what has been done in the past under the rubric of "surge" to get some clarity.

First, how does the dictionary define the two competing terms?

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

es·ca·late  
Pronunciation: 'es-k&-"lAt, ÷-ky&-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lat·ed; lat·ing
Etymology: back-formation from escalator
intransitive verb : to increase in extent, volume, number, amount, intensity, or scope (a little war threatens to escalate into a huge ugly one -- Arnold Abrams)
transitive verb : EXPAND 2

• es·ca·la·tion  /"es-k&-'lA-sh&n, ÷-ky&-/ noun

surge
Pronunciation: 's&rj
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): surged; surg·ing
Etymology: earlier, to ride (at anchor) probably in part from Middle French sourgir to cast anchor, land, from Catalan surgir to heave, cast anchor, from Latin surgere to rise, spring up; from sub- up + regere to lead straight; in part from Latin surgere -- more at SUB-, RIGHT
intransitive verb
1 : to rise and fall actively : TOSS (a ship surging in heavy seas)
2 : to rise and move in waves or billows : SWELL (the sea was surging)
3 : to slip around a windlass, capstan, or bitts -- used especially of a rope
4 : to rise suddenly to an excessive or abnormal value (the stock market surgeed to a record high)
5 : to move with a surge or in surges (felt the blood surging into his face -- Harry Hervey) (she surged past the other runners)
transitive verb : to let go or slacken gradually (as a rope)

From this, it appears that 'escalate' implies merely an increase while 'surge' carries with it a temporal aspect--one of suddenness.

The term 'surge' also has a place in military vernacular according to the LA Times piece:

Although critics blame pro-war spinmeisters, some military officials say "surge" has long been used in the armed forces to indicate a quick, not necessarily short-term, increase.

Army Chief of Staff Peter J. Schoomaker, for example, used the term in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in 2003, saying, "Now there is no question that there's parts of Iraq that we need to surge troops into."

In 2004, Gen. John P. Abizaid was quoted by Army Times as saying to a group of senior U.S. commanders, "So you have this notion of using surge forces to deal with specific military problems.... The combination of base forces plus surge forces ... is pretty important."
       (emphasis added)

Just a quick note from the definitions at the Oxford English Dictionary for 'surge' on my favorite definition and example:

c. fig. (or, more frequ., in fig. context) in reference to feelings, influences, actions, events, etc.:  Impetuous onset or agitated movement. (emphasis added) ...

1890 Spectator 29 Mar., No surge of public opinion would have saved them from the gallows.

But back to the issue at hand -- whether BushCo intends to surge or to escalate and whether the word usage matters.

Let's deal with the second issue first:  IT MATTERS.  Over at ThinkProgress.org, they are reporting that:

A CBS poll released Monday found that only 18 percent of Americans support an escalation of forces in Iraq. However, when asked whether they support a "short-term troop increase," the number jumps to 45 percent approval (48 percent disapproval).

In other words, regardless of how the terms may be defined in a dictionary, the American public views a surge as temporary, and an escalation as long-term, with only a small minority supporting the latter.

Given that the author of this recent 'surge' Fred Kagan is protesting the use of the term, (see LA Times story above, "The media has been using the term 'surge' very loosely," Kagan was quoted as saying. "And I think that's actually a bit of a problem, because there have been various ideas floated for very short-term troop surges of relatively small numbers of troops. And I think that that would be a big mistake, and it's not what we're calling for. What Kagan wants is at least 25,000 additional troops, and not for a short time.") I think it's time to put the whole surge v escalation debate to bed.  What BushCo will call for tonight, and what will happen before the end of this month is a long-term escalation of the war in Iraq.

What we need to do is challenge the press every single time they use the term 'surge' -- it isn't semantics, it does matter.  So write those LTEs, call those talk shows, send those emails.

Oh, lest you think this is some "new" policy being touted over at the White House and beaming into your living rooms this evening or you want to give a nice rebuttal to some friend, loved one, colleague or wingnut who tries to tell you this is "new" -- let's review the past FOUR surges and their success, brought to you by the National Security Network:

Escalation: Strategy That Has Failed Before
By igoldenberg, 01.05.2007

Over the past four years, the Bush Administration has on numerous occasions sanctioned troop increases. In every case this strategy has had little long-term impact.

Here's the list and go here:

• (new snappy title to come) (January 2006-? 2007 or 2008) [+ ~20,000]
• "Operation Together Forward" (June-October 2006)[+25,000]
• Elections and Constitutional Referendum (September-December 2005) [+22,000]
• Constitutional Elections and Fallujah (November 2004-March 2005) [+12,000]
• Massive Troop Rotations (December 2003-April 2004) [+15,000]

based on a predicted 20,000 troop increase