New Word Order - It's time to revamp the language of diplomacy and war

WSJ ^ | September 24, 2003 | September 24, 2003

[Tailgunner Joe]

Foreign policy debates have hardly been muted in recent months, but with the United Nations now back in session, there's a lot more verbiage on the way. One of the treacherous aspects of this war we are now fighting is the strange, officious vocabulary, often hollow and sometimes wrong, with which we have been wrangling over matters of life and death. Surrounded by the efficiencies of the digital age, we nonetheless drag into the political arena big stacks of moldy baggage from which we then unpack the verbal equivalents of a great white elephant show--titles, phrases and metaphors so warped or cumbersome they cannot at the same time haul their own weight and carry any real meaning.

[Batrachian]

I think most people who are willing to give a few second's thought about these issues understand the realities, despite all the propaganda. Everyone knows who we're talking about when we talk about terrorists.

The problem is that it's verboten to hurt anyone's feelings, even if they've murdered thousands of Americans and have promised to do it again. So we have to hear about how Islam is a religion of peace. We also have to hear how we have "differences" with our allies when everyone knows that they did everything they could to help our enemy.

But maybe I'm thinking too much, and so is the WSJ. Diplomacy has always been like this. Even so, we still fought our war and hammered the bad guys. No one can deny that. And with a little luck we'll keep on hammering them.

[expatpat]

OK, but are our WMDs also Weapons of Mass Murder? The anti-nuke crowd would love that.