Who Named the Libyan Affair?

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Does the American domestic target audience deserve to have names for "kinetic military operations" selected and strategically communicated to them with consideration given to avoiding names that are easily ridiculed or misconstrued?

'Odyssey' or Limited Engagement? Libya Mission Title Sends Confusing Signal (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/25/odyssey-limited-engagement-libya-mission-title-sends-confusing-signal/)


"We probably should have chosen something else, because people have read into that -- some type of long, enduring voyage," Eric Elliott, spokesman for U.S. Africa Command, told FoxNews.com.

Why didn't we chose something else?

Is Eric Elliott in trouble now?

Posted in Media, Information & Cyber Warriors because the Libya thread is way too long, Fox News is media, Eric Elliot is an information guy, and I heard about it from a tweet referencing a blog (http://weaselzippers.us/2011/03/25/military-yeah-we-probably-should-have-picked-something-other-than-odyssey-dawn-for-libya-mission/#comments).

[Pete]

There actually is policy guidance on the selection of names for operations, though I don't remember many of the specifics. They are not supposed to be particularly blood-curdling or undignified. There was an article about this subject in one of the professional military journals about 20-25 years ago that cited a column my Dad wrote in the Washington Post local news section in 1983. Dad said the Grenada invasion should have been called "Reluctant Endeavor" rather than what it was. The article in the professional journal concluded that my old man was anti-war; that wasn't the case at all, he was a World War II combat veteran whose frame of reference was Normandy and the Bulge, not some p*ssant little operation.

[AdamG]

So when does Circe show up?