Dot Wordsworth

Mind your language | 10 March 2007

I was baffled when I heard last month that British troops in Iraq would be ‘drawn down’

issue 10 March 2007

I was baffled when I heard last month that British troops in Iraq would be ‘drawn down’. Byron’s Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold, but he didn’t need to be drawn down. To me, as to George Herbert, being drawn down is the sort of thing we worry we might do to God’s wrath.

Unprompted, one might assume that drawing down troops would be like drawing down fire, perhaps calling upon extra reserves. But this did not fit the Prime Minister’s drift. ‘Over time,’ he told the House of Commons, ‘we will be able to draw down further, possibly to below 5,000.’

Within a few hours people began to think draw down meant ‘withdraw’, and that a drawdown meant ‘a retreat’. They even began to use the phrase as if they had been doing so all their lives.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in