As the Presidential candidates trade slurs, lies and videotape in their effort to prove they are qualified for moral leadership, they should know that use of language can be more significant than words themselves. One of the men I went through the Shot House training with is a history buff. When we talked he reminded me how America speaks of wars we are winning versus stalemates and losses. In World War One, we sailed to "Fight the Hun." Twenty-five years later, our soldiers were going "to kill Krauts and Japs." Popular usage also had us beating the Kaiser, Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. We didn't "go to Germany, Guam and Tarawa." We went to fight armies (or leaders personifying armies) and win.
But when I enlisted at the end of Viet Nam, those who fought "went to Viet Nam." The sons of candidates McCain, Biden and Palin are "going to Iraq." Others are "going to Afghanistan." In 2001 and 2002 American soldiers were going to "fight the Taliban" or "fight Al-Qaeda" and "get Bin Laden." In 2003 we were going to "fight the Republican Guard" or "beat Saddam."
If I lived 150 years ago, I would be "fighting the Rebs" and people who lived less than 100 miles from me would be going to "fight the Yanks."
The candidates can talk about war plans, but when we are collectively talking about fighting an enemy rather than going to an inhospitable place, that's when we'll know that victory is in sight. Those of us who have been dumb enough to take a swing at the wrong guy in a parking lot or a bar were fighting a particular "loud-mouth @#$%."
When things turned out badly we "went to the hospital" or "went to jail."
As of now, I am "going to Iraq." I was glad to hear in the debate that Senator Obama is planning to send someone to "kill Bin Laden" crossing the Pakistani frontier if necessary. I want to win.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Back in Panama: Finding Better Roads
Today is the seventh day since I arrived in Panama. After some very difficult rides back in August, I have found better roads and hope to...
-
Tasks, Conditions and Standards is how we learn to do everything in the Army. If you are assigned to be the machine gunner in a rifle squad... -
C.S. Lewis , best known for The Chronicles of Narnia served in World War I in the British Army. He was a citizen of Northern Ireland an...
-
On 10 November 2003 the crew of Chinook helicopter Yankee 2-6 made this landing on a cliff in Afghanistan. Artist Larry Selman i...
Neil,
ReplyDeleteWhat an interesting concept. I think though there is a little more to it than just, “[C]ollectively talking about fighting an enemy rather than going to an inhospitable place…” Language today has become to a certain degree softened. What would have been a common phrase or term in use 20 years ago wouldn’t dare be uttered in “polite company” today, and that is where I see the turn in how we talk about war and America fighting in a war.
Today, too many people are worried about trampling upon the feelings of our “enemies” as if somehow speaking harshly of them will drive them to hate us even more. But it was hate, whether real, or simply propaganda that drove the collective unconscious to speak differently about wars in times past. Hun’s, Nazi’s, Kraut’s, Jap’s what ever the term it was meant to make them less than human in the eyes and thoughts of the American people and make war easier to stomach. Today we can’t even say Haji, or Ali Baba even though that is what the Iraqi’s call the insurgents, because we can’t demean them in anyway. This isn’t the result of some realization that war is bad but rather liberal thought processes.
While I believe you are correct, how we speak of a place often determines how we perceive the “righteousness” of the mission, the selection of the terms, I believe, isn’t determined upon public sentiment but rather political expediency.
When we spoke of going to kill the Republican Guard during the invasion, political needs demanded that everyone speak in the same manner. The House and Senate overwhelmingly supported the actions and saw no need to think that the “War” would last longer than a few weeks, a Gulf War version 2.0 so to speak. When they realized that they had misjudged the complexity of the issue and finally realized that Gulf War I wasn’t a war but a skirmish in this war, they backed up and re-evaluated. Those who saw victory and righteousness in the actions still to this day speak of winning and killing the enemy. Those who saw a political foothold now speak about Iraq and Afghanistan as if they are somehow detached from the enemy.
This I think is why we don’t hear a lot of politicians speaking about victory over the terrorists but rather speaking about finding a solution to Iraq.
Your thoughts?
David,
ReplyDeleteYou're right. I neglected the general softening of language and the political correctness that language expresses. What I thought interesting is that with 3000 dead on 9/11 political correctness dropped away for a while. For a year or so, we were talking like winners. I thought it particularly telling that when we are training the comments about who we are shooting are specific and derogatory about our enemies. But the same soldiers who are clear they are training to shoot Haji, refer to what we are doing in January as "going to Iraq."