Desensitizing war through language

Throughout the course of the wars of the last decade in Iraq, Afghanistan, and soon to be Pakistan and Iran, I have noticed a distinct trend in the language used to define certain aspects of the war.

 

For instance, American soldiers are frequently referred to as “troops” when they are sent abroad. Yet when they return home, they are proudly referred to as soldiers or the brave men and women protecting this country. I imagine that this changing of language is used to make war seem like less than it is. It is much easier for the military or news organizations to report that we lost troops in an attack, as opposed to we lost our soldiers, our men and women overseas.

 

Referring to soldiers as troops gives the statement a vague sense of ambiguity, as it is easier on the ears to hear the word troops used instead of soldiers or men and women. Terms like “soldier” humanize the subject therefore making it more difficult for people to get behind the idea of sending them to a place that we have no business being in.

 

The same principle has been applied to America’s enemies. Frequently on the news, one can hear them being referred to as insurgents or terrorists. The word insurgent dehumanizes the target, therefore making it easier on Americans to hear how many “insurgents” died that day, as opposed to thinking about the fact that they are human beings.

 

One of my favorite twists of language to make war seem more palatable to the American people came at the end of the “War on Terror,” which was quite frankly a silly name for a war in the first place. Now, instead of fighting a war on terror, the United States is performing “Overseas Contingency Operations.” This semantic shift presents the idea of war in a much more pleasant light.

 

All of this changing of language desensitizes the American people to the concept of war, when we all really need to wake up and see what’s really going on.