Quote Originally Posted by Merv Benson View Post
Sometimes political correctness saps the heat from the battle and makes the whole conflict look more cold blooded which also helps the enemy.

I've been thinking about the political correctness movement in language (semanticism?) and the ethereal euphemisms applied to battle and war.

My hypothesis is that restrictive ROE's and political correctness are a "glad handing" corollary in the political spectrum of combat. I think there is likely a direct correlation between the two and as you see one increase you see the other also increase. I would further hypothesize that there is a direct inverse correlation between effectiveness in combat and the political correctness describing the combat.

I think in describing war as "peace keeping" and further "humanitarian" we've created an environment where the expectations of a soldier and general is skewed and the politics increases the risks for all in the theater of combat.

In the restrictive mental cubicle of political correctness and euphemistic dialog those who aren't boxed in by the politics will squeak through the cracks and videos as posted above will leak through. The politics and likely history will say the war in Iraq was ill advised and horribly justified, but the political history of the Iraq war and WW2 were and are so different. Imagine the message differences to the public.


There isn't much humanitarian in this WW2 poster.


Religion as a tool of war never by western civilization? Imagine this being said about Islam today. "You can be an Iraqi or Muslim but not both?" Yes I know that the corollary isn't complete, but it still is a remarkable contrast to the politics of today.


Just for MarcT......


All posters borrowed from Collectibles.Com