Originally Posted by
OUTLAW 09
Bill--agree with much that you say but here is the problem and as strange as it sounds it has to do with the English language itself and how the ruling elites in all western countries especially the US use the language.
We have fallen with the current administration into a void of trying to use the Webster's to define a problem just in a way that avoids the forcing of decisions to be made for whatever reasons known only to them.
This word selection often flies in the face of the actual problem and causes confusion among the population that is asked to support whatever strategy is developed.
We see it here ie terrorists vs revolutionaries, war vs civil unrest, incursion vs invasion, separatists vs mercenaries, unconventional warfare vs irregular warfare, COIN vs the world, cyber warfare vs the actual term hacking, information warfare vs propaganda, and the list can go on forever.
This choice of words simply fogs the problem making it appear to be far more complicated than it really is.
BUT and here is the BUT this current administration deliberately choose words to avoid action and by avoiding action it just increases the problem to a level that it appears to be unable to do anything and actually it freezes them.
By not full understanding the difference between say terrorism and revolutionaries we have a major conflict now in the ME, but not calling the use of any chemical weapons on civilians we place a red line that is never meant to be held to instead of simply stating the use of chemical weapons has been forbidden under international law and agreements and the use on civilians is simply put chemical warfare thus we will bomb period end of story.
By stating we are against terrorists and we will send trainers we ignore the simple fact that a nation state can under that definition also be a terrorist--EXAMPLE we get totally upset over Paris but the GRAD shelling of a civilian bus killing 12 and wounding 17 fired by Russian mercenaries or even Russian troops is again WHAT not terrorism==why the difficulty--we called the Russian invasion an incursion thus avoiding the term war between two countries.
Why because the word war determines then a set of counter actions all actually based on international laws and agreements that we always swear we support.
Since 9/11 we have been wrapped into word usage by administrations that are really not interested in solving rather than actions and now we have an administration that loves words but no actions---and we wonder why the world does not understand us--we do not understand ourselves.
Bookmarks