Letter: Present tense an odd choice for ‘War in Iraq’

Saturday, March 25, 2006 | 7:17 a.m.

We went to war with Iraq about three years ago. We were given news reports on the extraordinary progress of our troops. We were given daily news reports of casualties, fatalities and progress, (in the present tense) while the war was ongoing.

Then the day came when the president, his subordinates and the news media proclaimed: We have won! We are victorious! The war is over! Hussein has been overthrown!

The news media started giving us reports on post-war Iraq. We were given daily reports of post-war casualties, fatalities and progress. Bush's ratings started to plummet.

That was when I noticed an increase in the presentation of the "War in Iraq," in the present tense, as if the "war" was ongoing. It is as if the "war'' has never stopped, or we have declared war on Iraq a second time. I have been given many excuses for the present tense description of the "War in Iraq" by various individuals.

Some excuses are: "You are splitting hairs" and "this is a war on terrorism." We are either at war with Iraq, or we are not at war with Iraq. There is no hair-splitting.

The term "war on terror" is a euphemism for the word "failure." Two examples are the "War on Poverty'' and the "War on Drugs." They have proved to be failures, and the "War on Terror" is doomed to failure.

Is the Bush administration using the present-tense term, the "War in Iraq," as propaganda to bolster his failing credibility?

Wayne P. Brotherton Sr., Amargosa Valley