Terminology a reflection of mindset?
I received a SAEDA brief the other day in which the CWO2 giving the briefing referred to targets of such operations (US service members) as "victims" several times. It got my Irish up a bit.
I have also been known to rail against those who label captured soldiers as "kidnapped."
Question: Is this an indication of our society's (and military establishment - which is apparently content to use the same terms) view toward our Soldiers? What implications does this have, if any? Could that view be moderated or changed by insisting that we call "kidnap" "capture? Or "victim" "target"? Are there other such terms that could be weeded out and there-by alter the American public's perception that a Soldier should be viewed as a fighting entity and not a hapless, helpless soul? Would this change the such fundamental "truths" like Soldiers need body armor to fight?
Probably not, but I'm a sucker for hopeless causes.
Rule of Law - Laws of War
My 2 cents worth as a personal observation - scarcely a legal opinion although it touches on that.
Quote:
from sapperfitz82
What implications does this have, if any? Could that view be moderated or changed by insisting that we call "kidnap" "capture? Or "victim" "target"?
Kidnapping is a crime. The person kidnapping is a criminal. The person kidnapped is a victim. Murder is a crime. The person murdering is a criminal. The person murdered is a victim. All these terms are RULE OF LAW terms (domestic criminal law).
The terms "kill" or "capture", "KIA" or "detainee" are LAWS OF WAR terms, where the legality of the kill or capture is determined by Laws of War principles. At least that's the way it has been up to more recent times. Now, we more and more see Rule of Law principles infiltrating into situations which properly are governed by the Laws of War.
We see this in many aspects of "international humanitarian law" (the transnational replacement for the terms "laws of war" or "laws of armed conflict"); but also in our rules of engagement, which sometimes give our troopers less rights than I have as a home defender.
One can't blame civilians for using Rule of Law terms since that is the environment they are used to. Your W-2's use of those terms is to me simply evidence of how far the Rule of Law mentality has infiltrated and permeated our military as well.
So, Fitz, in answer to your question, choice of words do have implications because they reflect the underlying philosophy of the speaker.
Regards
Mike
Hmmm... more here than meets the eye
As for use of the term "Warrior" in lieu of Soldier and if you use the term Soldier you must always capitalize even if it defies proper usage...
That policy emerged out of TF Soldier (ironically enough) that was formed as a result of then CSA Schomaker's transtion tour - and yes it was meant as part of mentality change - that all servicemenbers are Warriors first and technicians second (think reflex reaction to PFC Lynch and her Maint Co brethren)
Yes terms matter and how you use them in ref to your Soldiers equally so... I think it is worth the effort especially in a setting like that to stop the briefer and inform him that while it wasn't his intent to imply it.. that there was no victims in his audience...
my personal favorite was to correct those in my presence who dared to utter "I can't believe".... you/we/I can believe anything especially when it comes to nonsensical orders from BN/
BDE/DIV... we frequently couldn't understand, fathom, imagine etc... but you can always believe
Wilf, since you, as a tool of the masters,
were forced to teach AP I and II (and associated tripe, such as the transitory guerrilla rule), I'd say you were an instrument of bad policy (IMO). As such, I'd be right there with your "snuffies" trying to find a way around them. But, then, I've always been more comfortable with "more razor sharp legal minds than could be found in most top Law Firms" (link). :D
Cheers - and my virtual handshakes to your "snuffies" :)
Mike