 |
| Kim Thi Kim Phic, left center, fleeing napalm bombing by the South Vietnamese Air Force in 1972. Three times as much firepower was used in that horrific, senseless war as in all of WWII. |
So what would be more accurate and truthful alternatives to the use of toned down and misleading terms such as the following?
defense, as in "national defense," "defense departments," "defense contracts," "the Department of Defense" (once called the Department of War"). An enterprise utilizing explosive weapons designed to efficiently destroy, kill and cause unimaginable harm should hardly be considered a mere means of defending against harm.
national security, as in "national security forces" or "national security budgets." Can the investment of trillions of dollars on the part of nations around the world for such "security" really make the world a more secure and safe place ?
conflict, as in the "Korean conflict," "the conflict in Afghanistan," "conflicts around the world. " Would not a word like "conflagration" be more accurate?
engage, as in "engaged the enemy" or "military engagement." While this sounds totally harmless, it is the extreme opposite.
incursion, as in "Cambodian incursion," "Chinese Air Force incursion into Taiwan," etc. These are code words for unimaginably hostile and bloody invasions.
mission, as in "a bombing mission" or "on a mission to neutralize the enemy." Hardly the kind of benign activity we usually associate with the word mission.
service/duty, as in "tour of duty," "in the service," "active duty," "duty (or service) to your country," "service member," etc. No hint of any harm being done by anyone anywhere, or if there is, it is seen as totally necessary and justified.
campaign/raid, as in "military campaign," or "daring raid." The former is war-making on a more massive scale than the latter but both are intended to inflict irreparable damage to human life and/or property.
sacrifice, as in "the ultimate sacrifice" or "sacrifice for your country." While we must never minimize the terrible toll war-making takes on those who wage it, a warring nation's goal is always to make "sacrifices" of as many enemy lives as possible, not their own.
fallen, as in "honor the fallen," or "fallen heroes." Yes, we must of course forever lament and mourn the extreme suffering and the many lives lost in all wars, while doing everything possible to prevent the tragic and untimely deaths of recruits forced to be "in harm's way" (another common euphemism).
So do we have the courage to call war the insanity it really is?
Mark Twain wrote his famous "War Prayer" in 1905, which was before the era of ever more terrifying weapons of mass destruction being dropped from the air or fired from long range missiles. It was his way of injecting some truth into the Orwellian language we typically use for war-making.
Anticipating strongly negative reactions from his readers, Twain asked that the War Prayer not be published until after his death, stating that "only dead men can speak the truth in this world."
Here is the closing part of his satirical prayer:
Thanks for this column. It's often true that in talking about war we use language that, at the same time, justifies the war we're talking about. So it's important to do as you did and look at the words we use. The Defense Department used to be called the Department of War. That's what it still is, since none of the wars the US have been involved in in my lifetime had anything to do with defending the United States. But the name change make it seem more innocent.
ReplyDeleteFor many years I've tried to avoid using the world "service" in conjunction with military involvement. That's because I've been unable to determine who's receiving a service. Certainly not the country we're bombing since 90% of all victims of wars since World War 2 have been innocent civilians (Deep Violence: Military Violence, War Play, and the Social Life of Weapons by Joanna Burke, Page 5, 2015; Also found in Overcoming Violence: The Challenge to the Churches in All Places, by Margot Kassmann, Page 60, 1998). If we're waging war against countries like Iraq and Afghanistan where over 40% of the population is under the age of 15 (double the percentage in the USA), we're primarily attacking children, teenagers, and women.
Words like "mission" and "service" seem to have been stolen from the church by the military in order to help try to justify their actions. "National Security" today has much more to do with addressing climate change, environmental degradation, and dangerous viruses than using weapons to attack and kill people in another country. We should be retraining soldiers to plant trees and administer vaccines. Then they would actually be defending the nation.
Pretending that soldiers who died in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan died defending our freedoms simply plants the seeds for the next violent conflict. But it also wastes the sacrifices they made if we have to repeat those sacrifices again in a decade or a generation by sending more young people off to kill and be killed. We honor the sacrifices soldiers who died in combat made only if we refuse to repeat those same mistakes and no longer sacrifice young lives for a transient political cause.
Another word we misuse is the word "force." Any kind of pressure or persuasion is a type of force, from sanctions, boycotts, demonstrations, prayer, even letters. But often what politicians and leaders are talking about when the word "force" is used is not just force at all, but military violence. Military violence has the same kind of effect on human bodies and human relationships as any kind of violence you can name: drug violence, gang violence, sexual violence, criminal violence, mob violence, the violence of terrorism, etc. It's all the same. If one's wrong, they're all wrong. The government sponsoring it doesn't make it right.
Again thanks for your column. You make a lot of good points.
Leonard Nolt
Boise, Idaho
LeonardNolt@aol.com
Thanks, Leonard, for your insights. I hope lots of people read your comment.
ReplyDelete