Euphemisms Suck

Pres. Obama will be making the most headlines tomorrow--and tonight on line--for his second prime-time press conference. Lots of people will report or blog on his comments and performance. Personally, I thought his effort was another warmed over campaign speech made more topical only because he is the POTUS and actually has to address the issues.

Two other things happened earlier today that are much more significant than Obama's "uh, uh, um" responses to press questions.

First, according to David Reidel of the Office of Security Review in the OMB, we are no longer to use the term "Global War on Terror". Instead, the Obama Adminstration prefers the term "Overseas Contingency Operation." Second, in her first testimony on Capitol Hill, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano never mentioned the word "terrorism". She decided to refer to "man-caused disasters", justifying the new term by as "perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur." German periodical Der Spiegel reported this last week but our papers largely picked up on the story today.

When I hear the phrase Global War on Terror, I'm pretty sure it is intended to mean that we are not going to sit idly by waiting for the next attack. We will take the fight to them wherever in the world they are because they can threaten us or our interests in scores of places.

By contrast, I don't know what Overseas Contingency Operation is, other than a head-scratchingly vague, wimpy euphemism. Let's break it down. "Overseas" means "over there", far away, as though this "global war" will only be fought in other places. We already know that's not true. Remember 9/11? "Contingency" means a "possible event". It's nice to think we can prepare for every possible "contingency" that can occur "overseas" but probably not realistic unless we are willing to allocate sufficient resources. Feeling confident that the Obama Administration will spend enough of the trillions in new budget spending to do that?

Then, there's "operation". Is that what you call an armed struggle against an enemy whose goal is to kill you simply because of who you are?

I suppose the purpose of the change is, in Secretary Napolitano's words, to "move away from the politics of fear". Using the term "war" is not "the politics of fear". War is hell, and though I have never experienced combat, I'll bet its greater hell when it's perpetrated on your home turf. We should have a healthy fear of our enemy, not because we can't defeat it or because they have greater or more destructive weapons, or the more justifiable position. And that's not to say we should be paranoid or overly restrictive. But failing to appreciate the danger of an enemy leads to a passivity. Passivity exposes weakness and creates and fosters vulnerability. I want our brave men and women to perform "operations" against the enemy but, make no mistake, this is war.

As for "man caused disasters", excuse me Secretary Napolitano, but that change is more than a "nuance". Disasters can be "caused" by an endless variety of acts, some intentional and deliberate, some reckless or willfull, some negligent or accidental. Heck, environmental extremists have called global warming a man-made disaster.

Terrorism, on the other hand, is not accidental or negligent, neither is it reckless or willfull. It is the intentional, deliberate, calculated use of violence or threats of violence to attain the practitioner's objective. The only time terrorism is accidental is when the bomb-maker slips.

Equating "terrorism" with mere recklessness or accidents hands the enemy another tool to use against us. See, the enemy doesn't respect PC crap; it respects force, domination and control. It uses those tactics in state governance and family relations. Suggesting that their murderous acts are anything but intentional terror actually encourages more of the same. You think they'll stop trying to blow up our troops and us if we downplay their actions? Compare Man X who drives his car recklessly, crosses the center-line and kills a driver in a head-on collision, with Man Y who goes to that driver's house with a loaded gun, intending to kill the driver, and shoots the driver dead. Both men have taken a life but would anyone deny that the Man Y's act of intentional, premeditated murder is the more heinous act and more deserving of greater punishment? If Y doesn't get punished more severely, he and others like him will less be deterred from doing it again. And again.

No, we change our language because we don't want to offend anyone. We'll hurt the feelings of "good Muslims" if we point out that the "bad Muslims" have bastardized their faith using oppression and violence. We should just talk to our enemy without using loaded terms and get him to understand our position--while ignoring his singular goal, i.e. to kill us--and then we'll reach some sort of "peace". If we believe those things, we're wrong.

Euphemisms suck. War is war. Terrorists are terrorists. Call things what they are or risk losing our very liberty and freedom. That's why we're fighting, yes, a war against, yes, terrorists.