Word-Warping Wars
When political phrases lose meaning
Monday, September 27th, 2010
“Shock and awe,” “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” “mission accomplished.” These are phrases that we grew up with — and when I say “we” I’m speaking as part of the generation that reached the voting age in time for the 2008 presidential elections. I can still feel the burning residual anger from those terms as if it were only yesterday when I watched the destruction of Baghdad on TV with the same horror that gripped me the morning of 9/11. Planes used as bombs, planes used to drop bombs, what was the difference? They both meant the same thing: death en masse. Under a government so focused on absolute statements (“Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”) and erratically violent retaliation on scapegoats, people like myself were itching to vote for someone we thought could change things. We wanted to rid ourselves of the hollow messages projected from every news station and latch on to something real. “Hope” wasn’t just a slogan in the Obama campaign.
Illustration by Kim Funk
In late August 2010 the country watched as the last combat troops exited Iraq with NBC chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel along for the ride. The remaining troops were rebranded under the title “Operation New Dawn” and Vice President Joe Biden made it clear to the media that they were not using the word “victory.” The government was trying to make good on the agreement for complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. Incidentally, a few weeks before the exit of the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division from Iraq, the country’s top army officer, Lt. Gen. Babakir Zebari, told the Telegraph, “The U.S. Army must stay until the Iraqi army is fully ready in 2020.” He is of course referring to the training that the remaining 50,000 troops in Iraq — Operation New Dawn — is offering the Iraqi army training that is supposed to end when the military packs up next year.
Some are branding it “mission accomplished, part two”. However, if the withdrawal deadline is met as planned, Obama has a chance to distinguish himself and his administration from those he has so heavily criticized. Unfortunately, the pseudo-inspirational lingo that mires our military operations seems like an omen. If Obama cannot keep his “New Dawn” on track and get us out of this mess by next year, what are we looking at? Another indefinite occupation? Even so, I personally refuse to buy into the apathetic rhetoric of “It’s the system man, we can’t do anything…” At least not yet.
Until late 2011 there will be no room for broadly painted comparisons to the colossal failures of the previous administration. Triviality of language in regards to our nation’s wars is nothing new, after all. World War I was named “The War to End All Wars,” which I’m sure was an even more infuriating title for that generation of young adults. However, most of our military operations over the past century have been engaged with a specific country and therefore held sensible titles: the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, etc. However, in the age of the “War on Terror,” our enemy is hidden, disguised. Terrorists adopt the moniker of “soldiers” in a holy war against the west and yet their actions are not dictated by recognizable laws of combat. Phrases and terms once believed to be definable are now metaphorical. They are surrounded by quotation marks, whether we see them or not, and become just as vague and confusing as the war itself. Whose “New Dawn” is it: America’s or Iraq’s?
This, I find, is the most disheartening thing about being a young voter and writer. In a political arena, even with our innumerable sources for information, words seem to lose their meaning. They are reduced to the whims of an agenda. So, I offer up a phrase born out of the military in the 1960s, usually uttered in times of overwhelming problems: What a clusterfuck.
Some are branding it “mission accomplished, part two”. However, if the withdrawal deadline is met as planned, Obama has a chance to distinguish himself and his administration from those he has so heavily criticized. Unfortunately, the pseudo-inspirational lingo that mires our military operations seems like an omen. If Obama cannot keep his “New Dawn” on track and get us out of this mess by next year, what are we looking at? Another indefinite occupation? Even so, I personally refuse to buy into the apathetic rhetoric of “It’s the system man, we can’t do anything…” At least not yet.
Until late 2011 there will be no room for broadly painted comparisons to the colossal failures of the previous administration. Triviality of language in regards to our nation’s wars is nothing new, after all. World War I was named “The War to End All Wars,” which I’m sure was an even more infuriating title for that generation of young adults. However, most of our military operations over the past century have been engaged with a specific country and therefore held sensible titles: the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, etc. However, in the age of the “War on Terror,” our enemy is hidden, disguised. Terrorists adopt the moniker of “soldiers” in a holy war against the west and yet their actions are not dictated by recognizable laws of combat. Phrases and terms once believed to be definable are now metaphorical. They are surrounded by quotation marks, whether we see them or not, and become just as vague and confusing as the war itself. Whose “New Dawn” is it: America’s or Iraq’s?
This, I find, is the most disheartening thing about being a young voter and writer. In a political arena, even with our innumerable sources for information, words seem to lose their meaning. They are reduced to the whims of an agenda. So, I offer up a phrase born out of the military in the 1960s, usually uttered in times of overwhelming problems: What a clusterfuck.
More by this Author
-1.jpg)
.jpg)
Featured Articles
Comments
Well said.