"De-escalate" and "Proportionate"

[spot]

The gentleman responsible for speaking on behalf of the Pentagon is reported today to have used the words "De-escalate" and "Proportionate" in reference to a specific airstrike this week. The airstrike, and his words, are reported, for instance, in this article:

“This proportionate military response was conducted together with diplomatic measures, including consultation with coalition partners,” Kirby said. “The operation sends an unambiguous message: President Biden will act to protect American and coalition personnel. At the same time, we have acted in a deliberate manner that aims to de-escalate the overall situation in eastern Syria and Iraq.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... an-militia

I wonder whether the team could advise on what those two words mean. My own dictionary seems unable to provide a rational answer.

[spot]

I could add further examples if that would help.

[magentaflame]

Hmmmm... in my job Those words means specific things. I have to act under law which means "Not disproportionate to the objective"...Crimes Act 462A Use of force.

De-escalate comes under the "force continuum". It's a list, which if the first doesn't work to de-escalate a situation you go to the next on the list. Then there are other tactics that work quite well. I've never been attacked or injured on the job because I'm a good de-escalator.

[spot]

I'm sure those words ought to have specific meanings everywhere and that they ought always to mean the same thing.

But the article headline says that "Airstrikes in Syria kill 22 in Joe Biden's first military act as president", and that this was a response to an event "that killed one civilian contractor and wounded a US service member and other coalition troops".

When I think of proportionate I always switch the sides and compare. If this was a foreign attack killing 22 Americans in response to an event which had wounded several foreign fighters and killed a civilian contractor, would America accept that the foreign attack had been proportionate? I think not. I think that when American airstrikes respond to events the intention, and the result, is the death of dozens for each life being balanced. I think it's an instance of American Exceptionalism, not proportionality. Least of all can it be described as de-escalation. I'm left wondering what lie factory this shameful Pentagon spokesperson graduated from.

I'm delighted that you've "never been attacked or injured on the job because I'm a good de-escalator" but I definitely see why the world's perception of America is at an all-time low. America's inability to de-escalate is legendary. Donald Rumsfeld was not a de-escalator.

[magentaflame]

This is only a guess mind.
Seven levels of force for security officers is as follows and I'm trying to think of it's equivalent on the world stage with military force.

Presence - embassy, <-----usually is enough
communication - diplomats <----- negotiations
soft empty hand - warnings and media
hard empty hand - warning of troop presence <------- restrain, embargoes, boycotts

soft full hand - troop presence <------ They've been at this point for ages
hard full hand - use of those troops

lethal force- lethal force.

just guessing. But I also don't think you can compare a peaceful state with a war zone.

[spot]

I also don't think you can compare a peaceful state with a war zone.

I agree with you entirely, but the level of military retaliation has no bearing on an abusive use of language. Personally, I think even killing tit for tat is a disgraceful application of military strength in what everyone would recognize as an asymmetric conflict, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether John Kirby can wank at a briefing without being challenged by the supine embedded press corps. If they simply allow him to describe such disproportionate killing as proportionate, or such an escalatory airstrike as de-escalation, without mocking him off the podium then they're complicit.

[magentaflame]

It's interesting how nothing has changed throughout history. I read once, a description of a battle from a roman general. (I was doing an assignment on Mao, but my mind wanders when I'm in a library and I came across another book. ) I remember standing there thinking this man is describing/reporting on a battle like he was an encouraging kindergarten teacher. It was basically a blood bath, but he was telling all how grateful they were to be dead and conquered. I wish I could remember the text, but it's 30 something years ago now.

[spot]

That sounds like The Gallic Wars by Julius Caesar. Great book, very effective General, nasty chap all round.