Iraq War Euphamisms

[Calamari]

Having a great big wargoing on day after day requiresa whole raft of new coinages to stop people from getting too hopelessly worked up about falling apart and other things that realy shouldn't concern them. The Iraq War has spawned a whole new range of such euphamisms to go along with old favourites like "friendly fire" and "collateral damage".

The whole affairwas a "preventative" or "pre-emptive" war - a safety measure closer to fitting a smoke alarm to protect you home from the danger of fire - rather than, say, protecting your home from the danger of fire by launching missiles at it. It was also a "war of choice" - as in "car of choice" or "cereal of choice" - which makes the coalition sound like a happy consumer rather than, say, the kind of consumer who bombs the shops.

"Pacifying Fallujah" became an almost comfortably familiar phrase (like Educating Rita or Chasing Amy) - with its connotations of a dummy helping soothe a crying baby's distress. During the attack on Fallujah, the Foriegn Office claimed displaced residents were "visiting relatives" (Presumably drinking too much tea with Derek Jacobs on the TV in the background) and the Pentagon labelled the 10000 to 15000 universal soldiers helping interrogate/torture prisoners as "Private Contractors". Presumably, the word "mercenary" sounded a bit, well, mercenary.

US news feeds would talk of another "Busy day in Baghdad" before going over to a correspondant who said "Yes, theres been some developments". On one particularly "Busy"day, 22 September 2004, the "developments" included two US soldiers being accused of the cold blooded murder of three Iraqi civilians, the discovery of the beheaded body of British hostage Jack Hensley, multiple car bombings causing 11 civilian deaths, plus a further 22 people killed in helicopter raids on Sadr City. So yes, definatley a "busy" day. If you were living in Baghdad, you'd certainly come home saying: "busy out there to today. Busy busy busy! There's what looks very much like a big ing war going on".

Perhaps the next time we could do away with the word "war" altogether and replace it with the words "birthday party". This will reinforce how coalition troops are calling in by invitation. On entering this "party", we will start dropping "cakes" on the hosts. Unfortunatly, this might lead to some "crumbs" falling on to the floor. But don't worry because we'll wipe up any subsequent mess with "tissues". Lucrative oil and rebuilding contracts will be "sweets" we can take home in our "goodie bags".

Despite the invitations stating that the party ends at 4pm we might stretch out the fun a little longer, possibly for some years.

What I would like everyone to discuss is the point of using fluffy words when your throwing around depleted uranium, cluster bombs and white phosphorus.

The above is just to illustrate a point. All discussion relating to the legality of the war can go into one of the other numerous threads

[Sven788]

I don't really understand your point, other than anti war crap....

[Caelius]

I don't either. What are you trying to get at?

The ongoing information revolution in technology has had just as much an effect on the modern day battlefield as any.

Winning the Propaganda War in the media can be said to be more important than winning the actual war on the battlefield these days.

I also find it funny how you offered a rather narrowly one-sided portrayal of things.

What's your view of groups like Al Qaeda and others labeling suicide attacks in violation of the Geneva Conventions as "Martyrdom Operations"?

[Calamari]

I'm not trying to be anti war as such. War is serious buisness so people should act like it. "Martyrdom operations" included. If you are going to sacrifice yourself for your country wouldn't you want your sacrifice to sound more meaningful?

I'm not trying to do the whole anti/pro-war discussion thats been done so many times. I was just trying to have a light hearted discussion about some aspect of modern war that is more than a lil' stupid. Are there anymore examples of euphamisms from this war or any others for that matter?

[Bovril]

Its all part of the sanatizing of war that makes sure people don't have to think about the fact that that lots of real people really get killed in horrific ways. Makes it easier to wave the flag and pretend invading places is noble and brave rather than just a disgusting tragedy.

I once heard some guy argue that in violent films those that show realistic gore and death should be given more lenient guidance ratings than those that show sanitised, glorified violence, since telling young people that violence is painless and sexy is much more damaging than showing them the truth. I've got say, I agree.

[Calamari]

Its all part of the sanatizing of war that makes sure people don't have to think about the fact that that lots of real people really get killed in horrific ways. Makes it easier to wave the flag and pretend invading places is noble and brave rather than just a disgusting tragedy.

I once heard some guy argue that in violent films those that show realistic gore and death should be given more lenient guidance ratings than those that show sanitised, glorified violence, since telling young people that violence is painless and sexy is much more damaging than showing them the truth. I've got say, I agree.

I kinda get what your saying. Still, did kill bill depict real gore? I find any Quinten Tarantino film scary, not because of the content but because someone actualy gave him money and time to make those bits of crap.

I was wondering about maybe the falklands and vietnam war. Both were heavily censored, or at least had a heavy PR element in them. Did dilly euphamisms and figure tweaking happen with these conflicts?

[Viking Prince]

What I would like everyone to discuss is the point of using fluffy words when your throwing around depleted uranium, cluster bombs and white phosphorus.

Reporters are human and they get bored with repetition. The euphamisms are simply the result. No differant with the recession, the major disasters such as the tsunami or Katrina. News is really only watched or listened to when bad things happen. How many times can you describe a limb being torn off before you would choose a politer means of conveying the information? It is the nature of language amongst polite company.

[Calamari]

What I would like everyone to discuss is the point of using fluffy words when your throwing around depleted uranium, cluster bombs and white phosphorus.

Reporters are human and they get bored with repetition. The euphamisms are simply the result. No differant with the recession, the major disasters such as the tsunami or Katrina. News is really only watched or listened to when bad things happen. How many times can you describe a limb being torn off before you would choose a politer means of conveying the information? It is the nature of language amongst polite company.

I guess so. The thing is sometimes these euphamisms are realy inappropriate. "Pacifying" being a prime example. Iraq does not want to be passive but I guess "Subjugating" doesn't sounds as nice lol.

[Shigawire]

I think Euphemisms are a great topic for discussion, as Propaganda is a deep interest of mine which I've studied. Euphemism is any kind of "labeling" that invokes a wanted emotional response.

Viking Prince stated previously that the Euphemisms arise naturally due to the "polite" and "boring" nature of the profession of journalism. I think this is false and may only apply in a few isolated cases, but not the vast majority. I can give you a few examples of how the process of picking Euphemisms is a highly conscious effort meant to sanitize reality.

Starting with the actual founder of modern propaganda, Edward Bernays - he was one of the primary consultants responsible for carrying out the Propaganda effort initiated in the USA under Woodrow Wilson adminstration. Since the US population was against joining the WW1, The Creel Committee thought it best to try to convince the population using propaganda. Bernays was hired by the War Department's Committee on Public Information, the propaganda arm of the U.S. effort. Bernays succeeded in turning a pacifist US populace in just 6 months. This made an impact on people in Europe. Among them Joseph Goebbles. Later in 1922 he was hired by a major tobacco giant who wanted to break the taboo for women to smoke in public. Bernays carried out this as well with great success, by using an event (4th of July I think) where photo models would march down the parade carrying cigarettes hidden under their skirts. At the given moment, they would all light the cigarettes simultaneously. Bernays had pre-paid the major newspapers to publish the event with the words "torches of freedom," a gesture of protest for absolute equality with men. Very clever euphemism.

The most famous euphemism of Bernays though is that he changed the word "Propaganda." He knew that the word Propaganda had some nasty connotations after WW2, and that's why he had to change it. He formed the "Center of Public Relations." The word "Propaganda" had become "Public Relations", which sounded really nice, like a banquet or something.

Other countries use their own Euphemisms. Israel, in their ethnic cleansing (expulsion) of the Palestinians in 48, had the word "transfer" for it.

Nazi-Germany was famous for some euphemisms such as "Lebensraum", which basically meant "making space for Aryans to take over the world."

Other euphemisms that come to mind are "Counter-Insurgency" - a word used for terror operations to keep political movements from gaining power.

Another example would be when all the journalists in CNN received the memo a few years ago (2005-2006) that they should stop using the word "Settlements" when talking about the illegal settlements in OPT (Occupied Palestinian Territories). Instead they were to use the word "Neighborhood."

Most news organizations are not democratic institutions, they are corporations. They have a chain of command.
Though some news organizations are in fact Co-ops (which I have more faith in).

[Exarch]

EXCELLENT POINTS ALL
yes indeed there is a movement that seeks to dilute our language to make it more...amenable for those who would oppose things like israeli settlement or war.
like the term 'commando' was turned into 'operative'

[Farnan]

EXCELLENT POINTS ALL
yes indeed there is a movement that seeks to dilute our language to make it more...amenable for those who would oppose things like israeli settlement or war.
like the term 'commando' was turned into 'operative'

No, the difference in the term Commando and Operative are cultural. The term Commando was adopted by the British after the Boer War. The US never adopted the term militarily in large numbers. The only people I know of in the US military known as operatives belong to units that don't officially exist. The term commando is just popular in the popular image.

Shigawire: "Counter-Insurgency" referring to the guerillia operations supporting the government and Counter-Insurgency involving stability operations are different.

[Shigawire]

Aha, there's another one: "Stability Operations." Good one.

Guatemala, after Operation PBSUCCESS in 1954 (CIA, E. Howard Hunt) - turned into what is today commonly called a "Counter-Insurgency State." That is, an oppressive regime which denies its citizens basic democratic rights, and instills an atmosphere of terror within the populace. All for "stability" of course.
Same with El Salvador later.

[Farnan]

Aha, there's another one: "Stability Operations." Good one.

Guatemala, after Operation PBSUCCESS in 1954 (CIA, E. Howard Hunt) - turned into what is today commonly called a "Counter-Insurgency State." That is, an oppressive regime which denies its citizens basic democratic rights, and instills an atmosphere of terror within the populace. All for "stability" of course.
Same with El Salvador later.

Ummm....

You got to know the difference between military terms and euphemistic terms.

Counterinsurgency and Stability Operations in military terms mean operations by a conventional force against a non-conventional force to create stability in a foreign nation.

[Shigawire]

Ummm....

You got to know the difference between military terms and euphemistic terms.

Counterinsurgency and Stability Operations in military terms mean operations by a conventional force against a non-conventional force to create stability in a foreign nation.

These specific terminologies are indeed military - and these are in and of themselves euphemisms. Unless you'd like to give me examples of how they differ - I'd wager that they are not mutually exclusive. It's just that in the realm of mlitary pathology, everything is black and white. Armies are top-down hierarchical structures unquestioningly (largely) following orders. And if an army is told to fight someone, they are always told that the ones they are fighting are "the bad guys." This is a universal truism. The Nazis were fighting bad guys. "Counter-Insurgency" sounds acceptable - almost like gardening - if granted the assumption that the enemies are baddies. Counter-Insurgency is something which a state does to non-state actors.

But here's where it becomes complicated:

What if the state actor has no democratic political support? Take the South Vietnamese government during the Vietnam war. This government did certainly not have the majority of popular support. NLA had the highest support (around 75-85%) in the south. Yet, the state actor was performing "Counter-Insurgency" operations against this "non-conventional" actor.

"Stability" is a real term, used to define the viability and health of an area. But "Stability Operations" is a term that almost always has some negative connotations for me. If there is an insurgency in a non-democratic state, clearly they may have true and pressing grievances. And "Counter-Insurgency" seems to make it seem all-right. It doesn't even need to be limited to non-democratic regimes. Britain was a democracy while still carrying out "counter-insurgency" in Ireland. The question is "how serious are their grievances, and does the affected parties have any way to address their grievances through dialogue?" In the case of the IRA, they did not have any peaceful methods that worked. Thus they resorted to desparate violent measures.

Saddam performed "Counter-Insurgency" operations against the Shiites after Desert Storm. This isn't even controversial.

"Counterinsurgency" and "low-intensity conflict" are euphemisms, technical terms for state terror.

[Farnan]

But here's where it becomes complicated:

What if the state actor has no democratic political support? Take the South Vietnamese government during the Vietnam war. This government did certainly not have the majority of popular support. NLA had the highest support (around 75-85%) in the south. Yet, the state actor was performing "Counter-Insurgency" operations against this "non-conventional" actor.

"Stability" is a real term, used to define the viability and health of an area.
But "Stability Operations" is a term that almost always has some negative connotations for me. If there is an insurgency in a non-democratic state, clearly they may have true and pressing grievances. And "Counter-Insurgency" seems to make it seem all-right.

Stability Operations is as morally neutral as Offensive Action or Defensive Action. Good guys can do either.

Saddam performed "Counter-Insurgency" operations against the Shiites after Desert Storm. This isn't even controversial.

Of Course...

He performed a different model than one used by the current military. Military terms don't have a good bad. US Special Forces use insurgent tactics against governments.

"Counterinsurgency" and "low-intensity conflict" are euphemisms, technical terms for state terror.

Sometimes. You paint with too thick a brush.

Can an Offensive Action be evil? Yea, just look at Operation Barbarossa. Can an Offensive Action be good? Yea, just look at Operation Overlord.

[Shigawire]

World War 2 is perhaps the only war in the 20th century that I voice support for. You will be hard pressed to find anyone disagreeing with that very special war, even us on the far left. But it's a one-off. And of course, I don't have to agree with all of the allied operations of that war.

[Azog 150]

What about the Falklands (Yes it is a small island and relic of the empire on the other side of the world- but its still British territory which we went to take back. 1 of my distant relatives lives there)

Or what about the First Gulf War? Saddam invaded a country (One with lots of oil at that) and clearly needed to be stopped.

Or North Korea. Yes there were some other reasons besides simply protecting a democratic nation. But look at how badly off the people of North Korea are compared to the South...


Granted though, they are the only 20th Century conflicts (Other then WW2) that I can think of that are truly just.

[Bovril]

The Indian intervention in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) during the civil war was pretty justified IMO. It supported the legitimate aspirations of the large majority of the population and ended a conflict that was teetering on the edge of being absolutely catastrophic.

But in all the cases given we're actually talking about bad wars that turned out well because the agressor lost. The only good conflicts I can think of have been anti-colonial/independence struggles, such as the Irish war of independence, or overthrows of brutal regimes. I can't think of a good state started conflict.

[Shigawire]

Hmm interesting Bavril. I don't know anything about the Indian intervention into Bangladesh.

We should be weary of letting the topic deteriorate into a detour. Though I still think this is a valuable detour to make - determining whether or not a Euphemism can also be a Non-Euphemism depending on the situation and facts on the ground.

I was expecting someone to mention the case of Milosevic and the Balkans first - in which case I would have a response. When you say "The First Gulf War" I suspect you mean The Second Gulf War - as the people in the region call it. Desert Storm? Ok, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US feared that Iraq would in just a few days withdraw from Kuwait, leaving in place a puppet regime (Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs). The concern was that Iraq would emulate the US which had a few months earlier invaded Panama - vetoing two Security Council resolutions condemning these actions.

But I fail to see what euphemisms to be gleaned from these events. This topic is about euphemisms used in conflict-situations.

I need examples of euphemisms for each of these wars to determine whether they are applicable or not - or if they are ineed euphemisms.

[ivan_the_terrible]

All major governments want to present a sanitised view of their wars. Most countries have had wars where journalists were allowed to report uninhibited (Vietnam for US, 1st Chechen War for Russia, etc), but this made them look bad. Which is why there are so many restrictions on journalists in wartime now - it's all about PR.