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.

You're right...we have become sloppy in our use of language and have drifted into words and phrases that can be twisted to be all things to all people...using 'operations' and 'combat' is another example - many forces may do operations but that does not mean that they are doing combat or that their operations experience gives them leeway to comment authoritatively on combat-related issues...

Words matter.
Clear writing demonstrates clear thinking.
Meaning and semantics are critical.

The UK and US have given up doing this. Go read any staff paper or new manual. It's usually gobbledygook

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SJPONeill

You're right...we have become sloppy in our use of language and have drifted into words and phrases that can be twisted to be all things to all people

---

Hmmmm....the word Maneuver comes to mind:D:D:D

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmm99

So, Fitz, in answer to your question, choice of words do have implications because they reflect the underlying philosophy of the speaker.

---

Then

the words the speaker uses effects the impressionable listener, too. My soldiers sit there and listen to a man of authority tell them they are potential victims of espionage.

Should these words be banned from Army parlance? Does making a stink about this promote a better self-image of of Soldiers?

I mean, if we believed that calling them all Warriors would make them so, surely not calling them victims would help too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapperfitz82

I mean, if we believed that calling them all Warriors would make them so, surely not calling them victims would help too.

---

On the same account, I'm genuinely confused as to all this 'warrior' speak. As I see it, the word evokes more passion than the term 'soldier' but is less accurate in describing a service member. Terminology/ mindset/ marketing execs taking over??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris jM

On the same account, I'm genuinely confused as to all this 'warrior' speak. As I see it, the word evokes more passion than the term 'soldier' but is less accurate in describing a service member. Terminology/ mindset/ marketing execs taking over??

---

I think buraeucratic (sp?) politics and inter/intra service rivalry also plays its part as does the civilian "advisor/know-it-all/prophet-type" (i.e., Lind!:eek:). Having newer doctrinal concepts and high-falutin' terminology to "sell" them with often plays its part in the mud-wrestling competion that otherwise passes for congressional politics (just look at the whole Stryker system, touted as a revoltution in warfare just to mollycoddle heavier types (i.e., the armour community) into thinking a phase-change in warfare was afoot when in reality it was nothing more than putting the infantry on wheels and breaking up the heavy divisions). I have a feeling that the "terminology wars" were initially part of the contractor marketing-media-advertising machine which then bled through and was wholly adopted by military types. I also think that the process of doctrinal production often has a logic all its own determined less by military necessity and rather more by the simple human desire to leave a mark/legacy/make a differance or differentiate one generation of soldiers from another (whom they believe to be obsolete; therefore, if you cant measure up to them confuse them with fjwjfsjlafkndnvkonkojivosnslkskorjiowjifjkvnjkljdf weiofhnsjkv:cool:.

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

Is this also a symptom/driver of our Risk Management process?

If the Warrior/Soldier is a victim, a hapless entity just waiting to be acted on by outside forces, does this not compute differently than a Warrior/Soldier that is aggressive and active, not simply a pliable dupe?

Perhaps someone felt that these words do matter, and if we call these Soldiers Warriors, they would become so (as though the term warrior is any better than soldier).

I have not thought this all the way through (as a true Warrior would have) but am simply trying to organize my next emotional outburst into a coherent manner that will attract fellow enthusiast Soldiers to a reclamation of our doctrinal terms from the latest change (the previous one being the one I know best).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapperfitz82

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."

---

I think that this has more to do with the perceived nature of the conflict, which (certainly in the UK) paints it as the UK forces supporting a legitimate government against an illegal (criminal) insurgency. We therefore see a migration away from military terms to judicial and criminal terms.

For the UK the dead are repatriated back to the UK, a coroner's inquest is held and invariably the verdict is reached (for KIA) 'unlawfully killed'. This opens a pandora's box of issues.

• Coroners' Inquests take a very narrow view of culpability and protection yet their verdicts have ramifications in law and politics.
• Unlawfully killed by our laws, but to what extent do our laws apply in operational theatres (an issue currently the subject of several legal cases)?
• The 'Wootten Basset' effect, the language used to describe casualties and other factors make me wonder whether as a society we are turning our armed forces from a military, expected to fight and die, to a quasi-police organisation, expected to go on operations but not to take casusalties as the norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Rat

For the UK the dead are repatriated back to the UK, a coroner's inquest is held and invariably the verdict is reached (for KIA) 'unlawfully killed'. This opens a pandora's box of issues. [/LIST]

---

I recently got told that the reason UK BG orders now had to be so extensive and add up to over 100 pages was in case the UK Coroner asked to see them. Apparently the Coroner now drives the Battle Group orders process... apparently.

Quote:

---

from Red Rat
We therefore see a migration away from military terms to judicial and criminal terms.

---

which is not a good thing (IMO).

But, it could be worse. In Germany, you as a soldier (who survived the close encounter) would regularly be investigated for war crimes in that encounter - see sources here, Perhaps in part .... :

Quote:

---

The previous approach of the German authorities was that Germany is not engaged in an “armed conflict” in Afghanistan, but rather in a stabilization mission. [7] Accordingly, the German soldiers’ right to use force was regulated by law enforcement rules and criminal law was applicable. According to the German Strafprozessordnung (StPO—Code of Criminal Procedure), §§ 152.2, 160.1 the public prosecutor has to start an investigation whenever he finds sufficient factual indications that a crime may hae been committed (Anfangsverdacht). Thus in every case where German soldiers resorted to the use of force and harmed civilians an investigation against the respective soldiers had to be performed. Because there is no special military prosecutor in Germany, the competent prosecutor is the prosecutor of the area where the soldier is stationed.[8] So far, investigations have been completed in 61 cases.[9]

---

Of course, we (US) have our own internal paperwork in such situations.

Say, Wilf, when you taught the GCs, were they the vanilla 1949 GCs, or did it include the 1977 Additional Protocols and "customary international humanitarian law" ? I am curious as to how corrupted your legal views became because of the teaching experience. ;)

Anyone here voting for James Molony Spaight, War Rights on Land (1911), in lieu of what is in place now ? :D

Regards

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmm99

Say, Wilf, when you taught the GCs, were they the vanilla 1949 GCs, or did it include the 1977 Additional Protocols and "customary international humanitarian law" ? I am curious as to how corrupted your legal views became because of the teaching experience. ;)

---

They were the post 1977 Protocols. For example, "Journalists" were now civilians. I don't really have legal views. I was merely an instrument of policy!! :eek:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmm99

w

- and my virtual handshakes to your "snuffies" :)

---

Check that you still have your "virtual watch" after the "virtual handshake!"

Shake with right hand - watch is always on left wrist, thereby allowing left hand use for virtual wallet lifting. The best defense is a good offense. :)

Cheers

Mike