Contrary to popular belief (a cliche heard at "hastily called press conferences"), I do not ordinarily slip egregious errors into this column to generate paroxysms of outrage from the Gotcha! Gang. Once in awhile I do, just to see if the gimlet-eyed readership is on the ball. (Calm down; when you're using "a while" as a noun phrase preceded by prepositions like "in" or "for," write it as two words. But when you need it as an adverb to modify a verb, use the one-word "awhile." Mnemonic: Once in a while, relax awhile.)
"After uncovering the spider hole," said Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez at his news conference on Dec. 14 last year announcing the capture of Saddam Hussein, "a search was conducted ... the spider hole is about 6 to 8 feet deep and allows enough space for a person to lie down inside of it."
Hot on a Sunday deadline, I turned to the Google search engine for earlier usages and breathlessly informed readers that the phrase sure to become famous was "Army lingo from the Vietnam era."
Too quick a call. As 180 Gotcha! Gangsters gleefully pointed out to me, both my etymology (study of origins of words) and my entomology (study of bugs) were incorrect.
Though the term was used frequently in the Vietnam War, it apparently (now I'm careful) was first used in its current sense in the Pacific theater of World War II.
"The Japanese did it a lot at Okinawa and Iwo Jima," observes Colonel Charles Payne, professor of military history at Virginia Tech, adding that Special Operations forces today would call a hole dug in the ground a "hide position." The technique is hardly new -- in the battle of Crecy in 1346, French archers popped out of their holes to ambush the English cavalry -- but we are more interested in the origin of the phrase.
Let us not be misled by the blanket weaving of Navajo women described in 1930 by Dane and Mary Roberts Coolidge: "They always left the spider-hole in the middle of each blanket, like the hole in the center of a spider web." In the sense Sanchez had in mind, earliest citation so far comes in from Barry Popik of New York. A Washington Post photo caption dated Jan. 16, 1941, reads, "Soldiers at Camp Ord ... here demonstrate the Army's new `spider hole' method of hiding a soldier."
In 1984, A Dictionary of Soldier Talk defined the term as "small, concealed firing positions from which snipers emerge to shoot at patrolling troops" -- now here comes the entomology -- "probably from the ingenious lair of the Trapdoor Spider, which darts from its hold to snatch unwary prey." This is the insect-eating spider of the family Ctenizidae that builds a silk-lined burrow concealing a hinged lid. Joe Cline of Charlotte, North Carolina, adds that the hiding-place name that Sanchez used was derived from "the lair of the trap-door spider, which waits for prey in a small hole in the ground, covered with a lid (made from spider silk, I believe) to conceal the predator."
The difference between military spider holes and foxholes (in which the Army chaplain William Cummings famously said there were no atheists) is this: the lid, or cover of concealment. The foxhole is shallower, dug for temporary self-protection; the spider hole is for an offensive or suicidal mission. "One could quibble," e-mails Bentley Orrick, "that what Saddam was skulking in was more of a one-man bunker than a spider hole, since it was a hiding place and not a firing position. But it definitely had a camouflaged trap door." Not quite; a trap door is hinged, and the lid to Saddam's lair was not, but one need not quibble.
The Army locution was immediately seized upon by politicians and comedians.
"Howard Dean has climbed into his own spider hole of denial," said the Democratic candidate Joe Lieberman, "if he believes that the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer." And the humorist Marsk Russell observed that "Saddam crawled out of his spider hole, saw his shadow, and that forecast four more years of Bush."
Hair-shirt hell
A few more of last year's goofs need straightening out.
I wrote that the Supreme Court's willingness to hear an appeal of a decision permitting discovery of an energy task force's files "augers ill for government in the sunshine." An auger is a bit; to augur is to foretell. George Washington wrote that General Charles Pinckney's appointment "augers [sic] well of the aid that may be expected of his services." Safire slept there, too.
On the analogy of S.J. Perelman's firm of Whitelipt and Trembling, I wrote of the law partnership of "Nasty, Brutal and Short." Todd Mariano gotcha'd me with the quote from Hobbes' Leviathan about "the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
Bashing the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, I wrote, "Bashar lied in Colin Powell's face last year." Jane Acheson, present at the creation of McGraw Hill's College Division, gently pointed out that I should have written lied to his face, not in his face. As I started to wish that my too, too solid flesh would melt, Hamlet's voice came through to me: "Who calls me villain/Tweaks me by th' nose, gives me the lie i' th' throat/As deep as to the lungs?" A lie in the throat.
A Google search shows lied to one's face is used three times more often than lie in one's face.
That places my usage in a respectable minority, with no correction needed. I forgive Google for shortchanging me on spider hole, though I suppose if I had entered "tarantulas" the etymon would have popped up and grabbed me.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS