Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Words
logo
name_omitted

So, we’re going to war again. Congress is full of people who claim concern over which countries will have “boots on the ground.” It’s an interesting linguistic trick. I suppose it’s safer to talk about the equipment we send to war than it is the people.

The Goat Rope points out that human civilizations are evolving towards less war, not more. Perhaps the next step, especially as war becomes more mechanized, is for us to use humanizing language in the lead up to war.

Solders. Humans. Whose people will be on the ground? Who, solider or civilian, will bear the consequences of our political discussion? I don’t really care about boots.


  • 1
IMO they use that stupid "boots on the ground" as a euphemism for "sending our sons and daughters to be shot at", because nobody wants to KNOW that the troops will be potentially in danger. *snarl* Oh, no, it's SO much better to think that they will be prancing about picking daisies and performing good deeds.

I once told a veteran that I seriously hope my children will never choose a military career. He was completely offended and asked why. "Because Congress does not respect our military personnel; I don't want my children to be hurt." I even more do not want our troops to be sent off just because of some over-inflated gas-bag's ego-trip. *snarl*

Sorry. Serious hot-button for me. I worked as a military contractor for 15 years, and it was really hard whenever one of our military personnel was TDY'd to the field, because we never knew if they'd be coming back, or even where they were.

It is a hot button. If we want to debate the merits of war, we should do so with language that attempts to honestly describe the cost.

  • 1
?

Log in