President Donald Trump raised the stakes in the Iran war last Friday by demanding the regime’s unconditional surrender. The president’s rhetoric is evolving as quickly as the modern battlefield, while cable news panels and editorial pages keep recycling the same tired clichés born during the Iraq debate or earlier.
These phrases often obscure more than they clarify, narrowing the debate with slogans rather than explaining the realities of war. Before they distort the conversation once again, it is worth taking a closer look at some of the worst offenders.
MEDIA MIND CONTROL: NEWS OUTLETS HIJACK NARRATIVES THROUGH DISHONEST LABELS
Exit strategy. This concept took off in the 1990s with the Powell Doctrine, later becoming a staple of the Iraq War narrative. But you don’t go to war just to find the exit; you go in to win. This bloodless bit of jargon should be replaced by concepts more suited to the Trump era, like victory. And for that matter, let’s junk the bureaucratic phrase “exit ramp” with respect to the Iranians when the president has shown his preference that they simply surrender.
Boots on the ground. This phrase, which became popular earlier this century, replaced the more authoritative “ground forces” or simply “troops.” It creates an artificial red line, since a president who promises “no boots on the ground” would trigger a media firestorm if contingencies required the deployment of even a limited number of troops, or if a covert ground operation were exposed. Trump has wisely gotten ahead of this problem by acknowledging that a troop deployment may sometimes be necessary, but in general, we should give “boots on the ground” the boot.
War of choice. This is another Bush-era term, meant to minimize the rationale for conflict based on a false dichotomy — that wars are either optional choices or unavoidable necessities. But all U.S. wars other than World War II have been a matter of choice, and there have been sound reasons to choose war. For example, Iranian negotiators boasting that they could quickly assemble eleven nuclear weapons. Sounds like war was the right choice.
Regime change. This label carries heavy baggage from the 2003 Iraq War. It suggests transformation imposed from the outside. While regime change is something imposed from outside, what the United States wants is a revolution — a popular uprising from within. The Iranian mullahs base their legitimacy on the 1979 Revolution that ousted the Shah, and a new uprising could co-opt the term by demonstrating the regime no longer has the support of the people. Since we are honoring the 250th anniversary of our own revolution, the distinction is important.
Forever wars. This expression gained purchase in the post-Bush era as a critique of the failed long-term nation-building efforts that Trump opposed. But it is odd to speak of “forever” when this conflict is less than a week old. However, the term could apply from Iran’s perspective to describe the 47-year conflict against the United States and Israel. But for Tehran, that forever war may be nearing its end.
War. Ironically, the most controversial word of all. This term became controversial when Democrats discovered that the Constitution has a war declaration provision and began carping that the Iran war is illegal. War declarations fell out of practice after World War II because of fears of nuclear escalation, so presidents began using euphemisms such as “police action,” “conflict,” and “limited military operations.” Trump has refreshingly avoided those linguistic evasions, calling the situation what it is — a war, with all its seriousness, violence, and potential for loss. But if Democrats think a war declaration is necessary, they are free to propose one on the floor of Congress.
OPERATION EPIC FURY IS PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH IN ACTION
Ultimately, wars are not fought with slogans. They are fought with strategy, power, and political will. If this conflict is to be understood — and resolved — Americans should resist the vocabulary inherited from past debates and speak about it with precision and confidence.
The stakes are too high, and the moment too serious, to let stale talking points define the terms.
Dr. James S. Robbins is the dean of academics at the Institute of World Politics graduate school and author of “This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive” and has taught at the National Defense University and Marine Corps University, among other schools. Follow: @James_Robbins