Semantics of War

            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 It is appalling that a government can make a claim that it has withdrawn its troops from a country when there is still combat going on.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.