Just a thought about a very carefully crafted quote from Hillary Clinton:
"We must set reasonable goals to finish what we started and successfully turn over Iraqi security to Iraqis."
UPDATE: "Complete" is the word choice of President Bush, in today's speech on the war. Speaking of the troops fighting in Iraq, he says we must "complete their mission." "Mission" is a much stronger expression than Senator Clinton's "what we started." Do you think we should complete our mission or finish what we started? Or do you think they're the same thing? I don't.
Posts
35 comments:
I think finish and end are both pretty vague.
"Win" would have been much better, and actually made a stand.
It is easy to be brave when there is no danger
I think Sen. Clinton meant that we need to "Finnish" the war.
What we need is some Finlandization in Iraq.
As far as the semantic difference between 'finish' and 'end' I perceive the difference in being the comparative emotive value of the two words.
They are synonymous, but, to finish something is to actively come to a conclusion suggesting agency (you finish a race), while to end something is to reach a conclusion whether or not you had agency in the outcome (his life ended after a long struggle).
Damn you, I thought I was finished with this sort of poststructuralist hair splitting, guess once some pathways are excited they never fully dissipate.
I disagree that finish and end have the same meaning when applied to "___ the war.
I argue that in this context
finish=complete=win
as in "Complete the Mission"
and
end=stop=quit
as in "End the War Now!"
One more thing, also notice Sen. Clinton's choice to use the word 'success'.
Many other Democrats are choosing to say the same thing she did along the lines of 'We must END our involvement in this miserable FAILURE and bring the troops home'
Subtantively both are calling to bring the troops home as soon as possible (when pushed even the loudest, miserable failure-ites like Sen. Biden say no immediate withdrawal), but her statement calls the return home a success while the other way of speaking calls the return home an ignoble return of the defeated and deluded.
Which would you rather follow?
(but then, she will be vulnerable in the primaries from the left in '08, and possibly even in '06 if some in the left begin to suspect that she actually means what she says)
I find it very crafty wordsmanship (wordswomanship?). "Ending the war" has come to mean "cutting and running". Finishing it may mean the same thing as ending it, or it may mean, as previous posters have pointed out, more active agency, plus possibly staying until it is won.
I'm in agreement with Bruce and Stranger.
BTW: I picked my example of "Complete the Mission without having noticed Ann's update (if it was even there at the time)
working on the second language test: Do you think we should complete our mission or finish what we started? Or do you think they're the same thing?
They are not the same thing. Mission in my mind is a pre-planned (military?) operation of limited scope and duration
Finish what we started doesn't have a clear definition, but putting a maternal spin on it rings to me like:
"clean up your mess"
Nothing implied in the phrase that implies planning or thought.
I think Hiliary's use of "Finish" was clearly designed to be different things to different people and provide plausible deniability for any eventuality. A true lawyer/political/trianglulator
essentially the points that xwl was making about "success"
Tefla:
"Can you end a war unilaterally? "
You can end an occupation of Iraq unilaterally.
You can't end the Goblal War with Islamofascists unilaterally.
You can surrender. You can win, You can suppress/reduce the threat. You can't end the war if they don't agree to a peace.
--------------------------
Ah for the good old simple days when you could tell who won and who lost the war. In those days, winning was defined as planting your flag on the rubble of the enemies capital and putting the King's head on a Pike.
A Roman Peace. Those guys knew how to solve problems. Just kidding here.
But I doget frustrated when my mother mouths that old left wing platitude:
War Never Solves Anything!
I mention Carthage or Hitler or Tojo and point out that might not be the case.
"Come on baby, finish what you started.
I'm incomplete."
Think of it in terms of racingL is there a difference between ending the race and finishing the race? Of course there is. Ending can mean/implies forcing everyone to finish prematurely.
That is, finsihing is what the participants do, but ending is what the organizers do.
In that sense, of course, only the military can finish it, yet clearly the legislative or executive branch can end it...
I like it when you guys spin Clinton's words as being somehow crafty or "triangulating" while Bush is of course firm and resolute.
Hmm, I don't know if I'm one of "you guys" but both Clinton and Bush are vague on specifics. While it's reasonable to say we'll stay until the job is done, it's also reasonable to have a discussion on what exactly that means - what are the parameters one uses to define victory and how do we achieve them. Both Clinton and Bush leave a lot of wiggle room in their comments - my perception is that Clinton does so in order to leave herself an out depending on the eventual outcome, while Bush does so in order to avoid committing to specifics that may be unacceptable later.
I don't view Clinton's comments negatively at all. They seem to be the comments an astute politician would make.
Around our family dinner table we have a shorthand for when our 16 year old son answers a question in a way that gives him wiggle room later. We tell him he's Clintonizing. He always replies, "What does "is" mean." Hillary's answer just shows she's getting better at Clintonizing-- although, in her case it will be called Rodhamizing.
Mission in my mind is a pre-planned (military?) operation of limited scope and duration.
I completely agree that finishing the mission/job/shopping trip is neccesary. So, what is the mission?
The problem many non-partisan-hackish liberals have is that we just aren't seeing a defined strategy. Now, we could be wrong, there could be one. But I just don't see it. (And before you accuse me of advocating 'cutting and running', I think more troops is probably the best solution. To plagarize myself: "Sadly, the best solution is probably more troops, for now, not less. If we're going to occupy, then lets occupy. Let's remove insurgents from villages and stick around and make the town safe. If we provide actual safety, infrastructure can emerge. And we'll be out sooner. But that will never happen, because it involves either the Dems or the GOPs proposing the measure first. And if you thought Murtha got slammed, wait til someone says we need more troops...")
Basically, my preference order, in a vacuum would be.
1. Do it right (300k troops or so, provide meaningful security to civilian Iraqis.)
2. Don't do it at all (if we weren't ready to do #1 than we shouldn't have gone in the first place, but that's spilled milk)
3. Do it half-assed (present situation.)(NOT a criticism of the troops, they can only run the plays that the coach sends in.)
4. Leave the job unfinished.
Not sure if it will be feingold and warner in the race with Hillary. At this point I'd define the Dem 08 race with three horse.
Hilary
Not_hillary on the Left
Not Hillary on the Right
that is why she ducks and weaves across the middle of the spectrum. Makes it hard for anybody to carve out a spot in the "electable middle"
"....1. Do it right (300k troops or so, provide meaningful security to civilian Iraqis.)"
I don't understand why people think more U.S. troops is better?
More U.S. troops could also cause more resentment from the local populace because we would have alarger presence and more U.S. military deaths because of the lack of armor for more troops, which would further erode support at home.
More troops is the answer.... but we need more Iraqi troops. And that is Bush's plan, and its working.
Sloan,
As I understand it, the biggest tactical problem US troops currently face is that once we 'clear' an area of insurgents, we leave. And then they come back. And then we come and clear it again. Which can't be all that much fun for the people who actually live there. Its almost like we are attempting to checkmate with a King and a knight, which is impossible, whereas using a king and queen is relatively simple.
I'm not sure how more troops means more casualties. I would actually tend to think the opposite, in that there will be fewer places to hide.
I would also tend to think that the more actual security we provide, the more patient the average Iraqi will be with the 'nation-building' effort.
The Drill SGT says: A Roman Peace. Those guys knew how to solve problems. Just kidding here.
Lotsa truth there, Drill Sgt. I have mixed emotions about our "kinder, gentler" age, especially when it comes to Islamofascists. Does anyone think, for one moment, those (insert obscene disparaging term here) would treat US the way we treat them should they win this war? They view us as being weak and pathetic, an unworthy adversary.
Win the war. And plow their fields with salt.
Interesting semantic insight in these posts. I suppose I should read the Bush pamphlet to figure out what mission we're completing now, since he already declared the mission "accomplished" many months ago.
I don't think it's going to get any easier to sell the necessity of a continuous war on perceived threats if the war is always framed in terms of missions that can be "completed". We're always getting two visions from the pro-war side: one of success just around the corner, and another of a state of ever-vigilance against perceived threats. It's going to take some Orwellian maneuvers to get us all to accept the perpetual war vision.
Sure, the way to effectively tackle a huge problem is to solve the smaller tasks conatined within it. It's unclear whether we're supposed to accept Iraq as just a part of the larger problem, or as a large problem in itself (which it most certainly is). I'm hoping that the strategy pamphlet gives an indication of how we'll accomplish the smaller tasks to complete the big mission of a new, free Iraq. If not, then even those that support the war could see that we don't have the right people running it.
Monkeydarts: "in her case it will be called Rodhamizing"
I think it would be more idiomatic to say "Rodhamming it up."
Wildabout, i'd recommend Joe Lieberman's op-ed.
Sarge et al., I'll point out that sowing the desert with salt may not make that much difference. Now, if they just had elephants, man.
Nick, if you check Bush's speech, I believe "win" was featured prominently.
Buck is referring I think in this line:
"And plow their fields with salt. "
to part of the Roman peace alleged to have been imposed on Carthage after the 3rd Punic War.
Rome fought Carthage over a hundred plus years 300 BC - 146 BC when Scipio Aemilianus finally put an end to the "Carthaginian Problem".
After a 3 year siege, Carthage was taken by storm. Accounts have it that:
- The city was burned for 17 days
- the city was systematically raze so that no two stones stood together
- all the men were killed
- the women and children sold into slavery
- the soil for 5 miles around was sown with salt. (some say this was only symbolic)
thus ended the Carthaginian problem.
"Carthaginem esse delendam"
Boy, I'm late to the party (well, all of them, today).
Anyway, here's my pithy 2 cents:
The word "finish" has a patina to it that "end" lacks.
Ann, I think you've found a linguistic Rorschach test.
In "finish what we started" I find no implication that the war was not necessary. If Bush had said it, I don't think anyone would suggest that his words held that implication.
A blind reading -- that is, someone comparing the phrases without knowing who spoke which one -- would be useful. Otherwise, we're in the Spin Zone.
"Finish what we started" and "complete the mission" are fairly close in meaning. Neither means "cut and run." Both are a departure from "stay the course."
See number 2.
(And there's a pun in there, too.)
Okay, if we're going to get back to puns, I want to pick up where XWL left off.
When it was clear that Saddam was defying the UN, some wanted to Gabon, while others wanted to Russian. Now we're looking for a way to Finnish. It's clear that the President doesn't want to say Iran.
Sheesh--I'm such an instigator.
(By the way, the pun reference had to do with my first post, not the linked definition one. And "play on words" would have been far better a characterization than pun.)
Peter: heheheheheheheheh.
Also, I absolutely admire your ability to, without skipping a beat, walk right through a door so obviously opened.
You go, guy!
In a tangential way, I am reminded of Churchill's crafty use of the English language during his magnificent war speeches.
He preferred Anglo-Saxon words as being more pro-active, and muscular in tone:
Fight never battle
You can see the intensity of the word fight, which sounds aggressive, rather than the French/Latinate battle, which suggests a certain elegantly relaxed effort -- not at all the kind of language to inspire a nation.
Similarly, "finish" is Latin, whereas "end" is Germanic.
I prefer neither.
I favour the word "continue".
Cheers,
Victoria
Victoria, I wish that the President could channel Churchill. We could use some stirring rhetoric.
By the way, both "complete" and "mission" have Latin roots.
I liked the directness of "they can run but they can't hide." Unfortunately, that's one phrase that the President will not be repeating any time soon (though I'd love to proved wrong).
complete? finish?
..git `er done?
(one of the )
only complaints, other than deaths, I have w/the war is we needed more troops initially; from jump. we`d be alot closer to 'complete'-'fins'
"Victoria, I wish that the President could channel Churchill. We could use some stirring rhetoric."
I am listening to 'The Last Lion' vol 1 (Churchil Biography to, birth to 1932). I wish ANY modern politican could channel Churchill. Not a single politician today could hold his own, as Churchill wrote all his speeches, and prepared all his remarks himself. The only modern politician close was Reagan, as his 'In His Own Hand' book shows he wrote most of radio commentary bits from the '70s.
And Churchill really, really did not like using long words when dhort powerful ones would do. Listen/read his speeches. The only times he was ambiguous was when he MEANT to be. Unless he didn't want to commit to something, you always new what he meant. Clinton, Bush, Kerry, Delay, et al would just be emabarrassed trying to verbally joust with him.
Ah, just remembered one instance:
A Lady told WSC that if she were his wife, she would poison his dinner.
He replied isntantly, if she were his wife, he would eat it.
Brilliant.
Post a Comment