Not-so Divine Intervention

This is for those of you who believe words have definite meanings. They signify something.

Today I read an article in Time--The Year in Review, "Iraq: Searching for an Exit Strategy." It is the bold-lettered subtitle which I find simply stunning in its implications. It reads, "The U.S. intervention in Iraq bogs down amid sectarian violence, as a new coalition government is unable to stabilize the ravaged nation."

Now, I don't want to detract from the validity of a perfectly good word. One provides an intervention if one has a friend who might be addicted to drugs, or perhaps even food.

One then intervenes, placing oneself on the scene, mediating, hopefully finding a professional who might administer some helpful counsel. I suppose a methadone clinic might suffice as a midway intervention for the drug addict. A cop intervenes in a domestic dispute. Some churches provide interventions for members who are suffering some malady, the intervention usually consisting of a prayer--an invocation to God for a divine intervention.

What we are doing in Iraq is the opposite of an intervention. A pre-emptive, unjustified invasion--an initiator of hostilities--has morphed into the more helpful "intervention".

This is like the George Carlin skit in which he contrasts baseball terms to those of the rougher sport of football (ther latter "spikes the ball in the end zone," vs. baseball's "coming home.") Similarly, we're not displacing and inverting their social order, just trying to help out a bit. This is subtle and insidious propaganda.

It seems everything is decentered since 9-11. If writers and copy editors don't do their work, the free press can't provide a reliable challenge to questionable governmental policies. In this case, Time is giving this administration a pass. And the editors and publishers don't even stand to get a star from it.

Jim and Lisa