A strange thing happens when one
nation is pitted against another. Whether it is an all-out war, a small
altercation, or just a disagreement over foreign policy, the respective leaders
of each country, along with officers, always face the same dilemma –
communication.
The U.S. government, for example,
has an entire arsenal of tactics to use in order to manipulate public opinion; they
implement them by using very careful word choice in press releases, reports,
etc. Very vague language is often used in order to make citizens feel as though
they have actually learned something valuable and that the government is really
doing its job.
It is sometimes difficult to know
what the motivating force is behind such word choice. When it comes to war,
executives often make decisions that they will have to defend, that is, if they
come into view of the public eye. Such vague reports (which are so often given)
may make some citizens suspicious that misinformation may be being spread due
to an error during a mission or foreign policy.
This is only one type of bias,
however. Even in positive situations regarding foreign relations, governments will
often portray everything that may occurred as being positive; vice versa,
released information may also understate failure or losses of any kind.
However, one can only speculate as
to the motives behind the word choice in public reports/press releases. In a New York Times article titled “American
Soldier Killed Freeing Prisoners of ISIS in Iraq,” by Michael R. Gordon, it is
stated that a U.S. soldier who was very recently killed in action was “the
first American soldier killed in action in Iraq since the withdrawal in 2011.”
The key word in that sentence is “withdrawal.” The reader must find this claim
vague, as the evidence shows that there are definitely American soldiers
currently being sent to Iraq and are still engaging in combat. It is appalling
that a government can make a claim that it has withdrawn its troops from a
country when there is still combat going on. The vagueness of this statement is
unsettling.
The problem of communication has
still not been solved. In the article “War Communication before Modern
Technology,” by Kate Kelly, the entire evolution of communication in war time
is shown. For example, the combat style of the Revolutionary War was largely a
result of the means of communication. The soldiers could not hear orders from
their officer unless they were all very close together. Clearly this created a
very difficult combat situation and made soldiers very easy targets. As for
long-distance communication at that time, couriers were sent from brigade to
brigade. This is also a very troublesome situation. If the enemy in the war
wants to cripple an army, they know that one of the best ways to do so is take
down communications. If communication isn’t happening, combat quickly becomes
disorganized and, in a sense, falls apart.
Though communication has evolved
rapidly and has seen many different forms, the underlying problem persists: the
message. No matter what medium one is communicating on, it is all for nothing
if the proper word choice isn’t examined and critically analyzed before being
sent out. Communication ultimately shapes the end result of any war or foreign
policy.
