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.