More Governmentspeak

Now that our elected and appointed overlords have, in their inestimable wisdom, realized the benefits of not referring to islamofascist jihadis as, ah, islamofascists – or jihadis, for that matter – but to instead use kinder, gentler terms, the time seems ripe to revise some other, less desirable pieces of language used by the government and security forces. As such, in the best traditions of totalitarian democracy, here are some suggestions for words and phrases that should – like jihadi – be replaced with kinder, gentler, more sensitive alternatives:

First of all, I’m getting really tired of reading and hearing about soldiers and marines being killed every time I turn on the news or look at the paper. It is, quite frankly, depressing. As such, I propose that instead of using the highly emotional terms “killed”, “died”, or “death”, we begin using the phrase “terminal event”.

Second, I believe the word “crash” has an unfortunate stigma attached to it, and conveys unnecessarily negative connotations. Please substitute “premature cessation”, as in “premature patrol cessation” or “premature cessation of flight”.

Third, “small arms fire” really irks me, because it seems to trivialize and disparage what are often more powerful, larger-caliber weapons than those issued to our great nations warfighters. I also believe that SAF is not something one should, grammatically speaking, “come under”, and suggest one instead uses the term “became engaged by weaponfire”.

Fourth, “terror” is an intangible thing; if you disagree, I then ask that you send, postage paid, one standard unit – litre, kilogram, or whatever – of terror to my home or work address. Until proven otherwise, I stand by this assertion, and propose that “war on terror” makes about as much sense as a “war on unhappiness”. As such, I suggest that the Global War on Terror be narrowed in focus to terrorists, not terror.

I also question our nations warfighters’ preparedness and determination to pursue the threat of terrorism beyond the shores of this planet. NASA speaks of returning men to the moon, or putting men on Mars; what is being or has been done to ensure these celestial bodies do not become the next front on the Long War? Nothing? Really? Then may I suggest the Global War on Terrorists become the Galactic War on Terrorists? The acronym, you will note, remains the same…

Lastly, I believe that the words and phrases used to describe the various atrocities committed by terrorists do not adequately convey the true breadth and depth of these actions’ repugnance. As such, I propose that, when speaking of rocket and mortar attacks, for example, these actions’ descriptions be prefaced with the word “nonconsensual”, as in “the Green Zone came under heavy, nonconsensual rocket fire for the fourth straight day…”

If you, dear reader, have any additions to suggest, feel free to leave them in the comments. The first step to winning the GWOT is winning the war of words…

Published in: Geekiness, General, Security | on May 1st, 2008| Comments Off on More Governmentspeak

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.