Avoid war "withdrawal" and "pull-out"

Journalists should avoid using the terms "withdrawal" and "pull-out" when talking about war.

Sending and removing troops is not like depositing and removing money from the bank. The word 'withdrawal' has different meanings when we are talking about wars and banking transactions. In the latter, a person withdrawals money from an account, but typically leaves a portion of money in that account. The account remains open. In war and conflict, a withdrawal means the ceasing of operations. See the definitions and examples from Merriam-Webster:

withdrawal |wiðˈdrôl; wiθ-|

noun

• an act of taking money out of an account.

• a sum of money withdrawn from an account : a $30,000 cash withdrawal.

• the action of ceasing to participate in an activity : the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

When we talk about the troop withdrawal, we are usually wrong to mean that the military is leaving the country. This is not the case in Iraq and Afghanistan; a substantial troop presence will remain in the country along with the largest embassy in the world. After the so-called withdrawal from Iraq, some 50,000 troops will remain in the country. This is a reduction in the number of troops, not a withdrawal or pull-out. Similarly in Basra, the military has referred to the withdrawal of troops there. Actually, two thousand troops were leaving, and one thousand were arriving. This is a reduction, or an exchange, but not a withdrawal. Since pull-out refers to a withdrawal, it should be avoided as well:

pullout |ˈpoŏlˌout| (also pull-out)

noun

1 a section of a magazine or newspaper that is designed to be detached and kept for rereading : don't miss Monday's 8-page NBA pullout.

2 a withdrawal, esp. from military involvement or participation in a commercial venture.

There are several reasons for avoiding certain terminology. Firstly, they are inaccurate, as noted earlier. Withdrawal has a literal meaning of the ceasing of operations when referring to military action. Since a substantial troop presence will remain, using this word is inaccurate.

Secondly, we can assume officials chose these words specifically because they are meant to convey a certain meaning, but may also have a secondary meaning. In the case of withdrawal, the military is not technically inaccurate to describe it as such–because it does have the meaning of a reduction instead of a conclusion–but is not fully accurate either.

Military operations are rarely terminal. They are not like novels that have a beginning, middle and end, with a climax sprinkled somewhere in there. As journalists we may easily fall into the trap of describing conflict in the context of such a story. We may see this frequently when describing the height of war or a single period of high casualties. War planners, if they are efficient, conduct war like a chef prepares a meal: first you gather the materials, then you prepare them, then you cook them, then you serve them. The end of major military operations is not when the meal is eaten, it is only when it is still being cooked. Long-term occupation is the real meal, and unlike declarations of war, declarations of peace are rare. See the Korean War.

Finally, we must be careful about describing events that have not yet happened. While the government may want it citizens to feel that war will come to an end, we as journalists are not in the business of predicting future events. We are in the business of reporting today's news. As much as we think we are experts or analysts, we are not. Our job is to stick to the present.

Wars are dynamic. We cannot expect leaders to strictly adhere to rigid timetables. They must adapt. Although we might want to point out to politicians later that they failed to meet a deadline, they may simply answer that they had to make a tough decision. They might also get out of this timetable by adjusting plans in advance. This has already happened in Iraq and in Afghanistan, although Obama has insisted the Iraq date is firm. The original stated plan in Afghanistan was a troop reduction starting in July 2011, but Obama said he might not stick to that time frame, but it depends on who is writing the article. Obama also revised his campaign timetable for reduction in Iraq before he was elected.

If we must absolutely stick to this terminology, we should put it in the most dubious terms: a possible withdrawal, a planned pull-out, but not in the absolute terms that politicians would like to convey. It is best, however, to be both accurate about the description of a future event and dubious about it happening, such as calling it a planned reduction.