D4

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

Speak Up

Good morning everyone! Today is a good time to talk about language and war. It's a tricky subject, fraught with ideological landmines, but I'll wade in anyway. The first problem: one person's 'propaganda' is often another person's 'truth' when it comes to war and wartime.

Messy business

That little truism is one way that war is a truly messy business along with the bloody reality war brings home to soldiers actually fighting. Nor is it necessarily easy to determine or separate 'truth' from 'propaganda,' even when one tries their dispassionate, objective best. Indeed, sometimes propaganda and truth coincide. Other times, though, the two are polar opposites, even if the cause is noble and defensible.

The one over-riding thing that sticks with me after spending decades interviewing veterans of the Second World War; one thing virtually all the individuals in this vast and varied group have in common: their haunted memories of the brutal realities of war very different from romantic notions of adventure and excitement that militaries use to recruit. Veterans vary widely on many issues and even on ideology, but even the hawkish know war is neither easy nor pretty.

A nation or society should never forget that, although I fear many often do.

Language change

Veterans also all know there is a very definite language of war. The patriotic jargon, the military euphemisms, little lies they get told that they later realize aren't true, pep talks from the highest ranks who they later learn or realize didn't give a hoot about their individual lives and other hypocrisies that tend to take the initial shine off war, an often ruthless business. It is the veterans -- even those who fought in a truly important and 'just' war such as the Second World War -- who use quite different words and descriptions of war than they did as young volunteers yet to see battle. They're under few delusions.

Words

Language matters. It's no accident those killed in war are invariably hailed as 'brave' even though most survivors of battles like D-Day talk of unimaginable, inescapable terror. But truth isn't the point in propaganda. It's no accident soldiers invariably are said to have 'given their lives' for their country when in reality most had their life 'taken' by via the random bad luck of war. It's no accident our military in Afghanistan calls landmines 'improvised explosive devices,' subtle propaganda that minimizes their danger. It sounds like a Mickey Mouse thing concocted by amateurs who don't know what they're doing, although the death toll from them demonstrates otherwise.

Propaganda

Wartime always brings propaganda, always justified in the name of unity and winning. Some is relatively harmless; some is as dangerous to a nation as the external enemy. Vietnam was a war that continued far too long; well past the point it was obviously impossible to 'win' it. The propaganda deeply divided the U.S., creating social damage that hasn't yet healed. Less dramatically, Canadians are witnessing something similar: assurances about 'progress' in Afghanistan in stark contrast with the fighting facts: mounting death tolls, still effective landmines, an 'enemy' that keeps penetrating even 'secure' areas, and no sign of any weakness among the Taliban, all with no concrete reason to believe the situation will change. Tough question: does that mean our soldiers are 'dying in vain'?

Assurances to the contrary must be given, of course. Governments get caught in a trap made of their own propaganda. Admitting error or defeat throws everything said and done previously into doubt. It tends not to happen until late in the game when there are few or no other options. That's a real danger of propaganda. It needs to be wielded very carefully!

A test

So how are rational people supposed to judge if a war is 'just' or not; or even 'justifiable' despite having some reservations about the messy business?

Pay attention to the loaded language. And look for clearly, concrete objectives; reasons for fighting. The Second World War was perhaps one of the most clear cut in history. It had excellent goals (stop Hitler and his Axis) and clear justification. Most wars are much less obvious. In Afghanistan, the goal/justification keeps shifting: it was to 'get' Bin Laden; it was to 'liberate' Afghani people from an oppressive, evil regime, it was to fight 'terrorism;' and now it is to establish democracy and freedom (ironically by setting up an unelected, appointed government that could only be re-elected by massive vote fraud, with our Allies now being forced to erroneously argue it is a 'legitimate' government because the alternatives are worse). All except the original justification (which failed) are ill-defined and vague. The sweeping, fuzzy language of propaganda hides a disturbing reality: we have no clear objective; we're fighting and hoping something 'good' eventually happens.

The last word

Here's Benjamin Franklin:

"There never was a good war or a bad peace."

* Lex Talk! is researched and written by Times & Transcript editorial page editor Norbert Cunningham. It appears in this space every Monday.