The War of Words

While American soldiers continue to perish amidst a battle that is not their own, American politicians continue to debate the merits of a time-line to bring 'the troops' home. In the current war of words among pundits and politicians over the situation in Iraq 'the troops' are constantly referenced. Pro and anti-war groups alike claim to "support our troops" or have the best interest of 'the troops' in mind.

The problem is that no one is actually talking about troops. True, there are groups of soldiers in Iraq, one of the definitions of 'troops'. 3200 'troops' have not given their lives in Iraq, however, 3200 soldiers have. Individual men and women have been killed and tens of thousands more injured and maimed. To depersonalize these individuals by labeling them with a term that has no singular sense, a troop does not return home in a casket, does them a grave disservice and insulates the American public from the horrors of war.

John McWhorter, a linguist at the Manhattan Institute, spoke eloquently about this issue on the Tuesday March 27th episode of All Things Considered:

The problem is that this usage of troops is only possible in the plural. One cannot refer to a single soldier as a troop. This means that calling 20,000 soldiers "20,000 troops" depersonalizes the soldiers as individuals, and makes a massive number of living, breathing individuals sound like some kind of mass or substance, like water or Jell-O, or some kind of freight.

It's rather like the word news: there is no such thing as a "new," which is why news conveys a quickly passing blur of events leading one into the other, and also sounds slightly trivial. When something winds up "in the news," it sounds like it has taken a step down, been tatted up a bit.

And so it's almost fitting that it is in said news that masses of soldiers are typically referred to as troops. The Democrats are seeking to bring soldiers — persons — home, not troops. Mothers do not kiss their troop goodbye as he takes off for Anbar Province. One will never encounter a troop learning to use her prosthetic leg.

Using a name for soldiers that has no singular form grants us a certain cozy distance from the grievous reality of war. Meanwhile, it serves no purpose: It certainly isn't clearer than soldiers, and in fact is less clear, because one may wonder whether squadrons are meant rather than individuals.

Our national conversation about this war would be more honest if the usage of troops when one means soldiers was considered clumsy, and even rude. Our position on this war must be based on direct consideration of the fact that we are sending human beings to Iraq. After all, we do not designate the contents of a body bag as a troop.

A second troubling rhetorical construction that is unfortunately commonplace today is the 'war on terror'. Since the 9/11 attacks President Bush and his administration have declared war on terror. Sadly this is impossible. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser, recently pointed out:

The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.

A strategy is not an enemy that can be sought out and confronted. The deliberate vagueness in the 'war on terror' has allowed the Bush Administration to wield it as a powerful tool in its incessant campaign of fear-mongering that the Administration has perpetrated on the American public for the past six years to great success. Among the other evils this turn of phrase has brought about Mr. Brzezinski points out that:

The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves.

The war of words which this nation finds itself mired in, has brought the level of discourse and understanding to disturbing new lows. Using words to mask and distort the issues at hand, important issues that are integral to the future of this country, is cowardly and dishonest.

The debate on Iraq concerns the safety and welfare of our soldiers. The war is against al Qaeda, who attacked the United States.