Language is everything.

In the hyper-fast world of electronic media, terms and definitions have their meanings altered and distorted as the need arises.

To whit:

200 people are blown up in a building in Basra during an air strike. That's a hell of a lot of people, too many to just deny as accidental, "collateral" deaths. The US makes up a really amazing story about 200 members of a "terrorist death squad" meeting in a building in Basra to "plan attacks upon coalition forces." Acting upon timely "intelligence," fighters and bombers leap to the air and drop tons of ordnance on the building, demolishing it and killing everyone inside.

Hurrah!

Terrorist Death Squad Members Are Dismembered!

That was a few days ago.

Today, the British government, whose forces are largely in control of the areas surrounding Basra, has re-characterized those inside the building as "Baath Party Members," now dismembered, of course. A blow for the old empire, to be certain.

Language is everything.

If those men killed were officers in the military, or even civil servants, then the Brits will be telling the truth in the strict reductionist sense, as all of them would have been members, now dismembered, of the Baath Party. When they mutated from being dismembered members of a Terrorist Death Squad to bog standard members (dismembered) of the ruling Baath Party, we shall never know.

In fact, language continues to take a very odd turn in Iraq and the airwaves carrying the war to the rest of us.

It seems there are very few civilians in Iraq at all, judging by the pictures and the commentary. Tanks, planes, and many many explosions, but very few civilians, and then only when they are dead, and them only if they are proven to be dead by hands other than our own. That Baghdad marketplace remains a shining example of how odd things can become. In the minutes following the breaking of that story, officials at CENTCOM had already floated a story that Iraq had done it to themselves, even though a near continuous bombing and missile campaign had been going on at the time. Later, when they'd had a bit of time to think, they floated a new rendition of the same story, claiming that some sort of mysterious Iraqi missile had misfired and fallen back to earth. Except there were multiple craters in the street there, so several missiles simultaneously misfired, fell back to earth, and killed civilians.

A few points can be awarded for sheer chutzpah, as those same officials at CENTCOM took a cursory look at a grainy videotape of the blasted market and strewn (and yes, dismembered) bodies and declared with shiny confidence that the bomb craters were "inconsistent with US munitions." Are you fucking kidding me?

Language is everything.

There is no Iraqi military left, except for those who surrender when we tell them to.

The rest have all been relegated to a whole host of new categories, churned out again by those boys at CENTCOM. I suppose they have little else to do - they don't fight themselves, they don't release any real, factual information to the press, and their self-importance can be contained for only so long. Any man with a gun and not in full Iraqi uniformed regalia is called, at the very least, an "irregular." In some cases, this might be true. Men might have been run off their land by the bombs or advancing troops, or terrified of the coming invasion of their homeland, brutal dictator or not. They may well be Iraqi soldiers whose uniforms have worn out or no longer fit, and for which there are no replacements. Sounds hilarious, but it is likely true. Think Confederate soldiers in America - no two dressed anything alike, because what little resources they had went to guns and food.

Then there are the "paramilitaries". These were mostly "irregulars" in the first week of the war, but "paramilitaries" is a more loaded term, denoting a kind of lawlessness or shifting loyalty. This is applied in order to cut them off from any association with the nation of Iraq. If they are not true soldiers of the country, then they are one step closer to terrorists, and much easier to kill, or torture, etc.

Last, we have my favorite, "Terrorist Death Squad."

This is also a loose term, highly loaded, with a shifting and ever-broadening definition. If the war does not end in a few more days or so, everyone in Iraq who is obviously not a combatant will be a member (potentially dismembered) of a "Terrorist Death Squad." Under the current definition, these people were called the Fedayeen until two or three days ago, when CENTCOM, they of the spiffy clean uniforms, came up with their new moniker. The new name came right when legitimate doubts about the war were springing up, and there is nothing like the word "terrorist" to cloud the issue and reset the American jaw.

Fedayeen, as I understand it, means "devoted to a cause" or "to die for a cause." These soldiers are sworn to Saddam Hussein himself, a grave error in judgment in my view. I understand them to be a fanatical personal military guard. They are not bound by military commanders in the field but by Hussein himself. This is neither shocking nor all that unusual, nor does it rise to "terrorist" as the word has come to be popularly defined in the West after the events of September 11, 2001. Thus far, they have been accused of all manner of crimes by the US military, but there is no evidence whatsoever for any of it, and a military command that will stretch reality to avoid taking responsibility for civilian deaths while bombing a city full of them is the least likely source of truthful information. The media that reports the war here relies entirely upon that military command structure and its political masters for information, so they also disqualify themselves. Point being, all of the horrors attributed to the Fedayeen (who are pretty small in number - they must run really fast to get all over the country to perform that much mayhem) or some or none of them may turn out to be true - but our government has gone right ahead and behaved in its usual irresponsible way and applied the appellation "Terrorist Death Squad" to them, dehumanizing them, making it easier to kill them. Thus, "liberation."

Thirty years ago it was "pacification."

Language is everything.

And on the subject of war crimes.

Enough already. The Red Cross has determined that both the US and the Iraqis violated the terms of the Geneva Convention in filming and airing films of captured prisoners. As for the repeated fairy tales of US soldiers who were first captured and them executed - it has not been shown to be true, and likely it is not. The Brits had made the same accusation about two of their own, which has since been withdrawn by British military command, though not Tony Blair. Disgusting, really, that he would use two families' pain for propaganda purposes. Not bad enough they were killed in war, no, they had to be led to believe there loved ones had been captured, tortured, and executed. Tony really has become a little follow-along lapdog for the Shrub, hasn't he?

The final hilarity, in the most morbid of senses, to all of this war crimes talk, is His Shrubness threatening to try anyone else filming American POWs as war criminals. My question would have to be: In what venue? The US pulled out of the International Criminal Court at The Hague, set up specifically to deal with war crimes and other major issues between nations. No doubt he'll label everyone who pisses him off an "unlawful combatant dismembered member of a terrorist pretzel squad" and relegate them to a purgatory of listening to him read aloud every evening.