The bizarre fixation of military terminology in a political sense:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

OK, I'm-a just note here: the whole concept of military terminology in politics has bugged me the more it is that I think about it.

There's a blunt reason for this, first and foremost: armies exist to kill people and to do so very, very well. The whole purpose of everything to do with an army is to ensure that when it kills people it does so with a degree of skill and efficiency that ensures that it does so for hopefully a short time that doesn't cost much. Whenever people speak of being on-target that means technology that ensures a human being is directly in position to be killed horribly by an expensive piece of machinery.

When people speak of tactics, that's how a small group of people go about killing another small group of people very efficiently, hopefully without many of their own people dying horribly. Strategy is how all that tactics and the intermediary operational level fit together. The thing is that the sole purpose of this is to ensure that soldiers kill other soldiers (and civilians, too) in the most ghastly efficient ways possible. Now, if people object to the term "killing" in regard to war, I repeat to you that in the words of Nathan Bedford Forrest war means fighting and fighting means killing. If the word bothers you, tough shit, that's what a war is.

The point of all this is that politics is supposed to be non-violent. It's the concept of people working together in civil institutions through legal means to achieve civil goals by virtue of institutions relying on non-violent institutions. So why the fuck does so much violent language creep in all over the place? Why should activities of peace have the vocabulary of war and bloodshed? IMHO at least in the USA this has to do with the juvenile, spoiled brat nature of the US political culture, one used to greed and all manner of indulgence but not used to the consequences of its actions.

I'm not sure of the extent to which this exists in other countries, but at least in this one it's because in my own opinion (and I say this regardless of who uses the rhetoric, it's weird coming from the mouths of both Dems and GOP people) the USA's political culture promotes adult children who don't have the intellectual ability or the courage to make a real decision, and they cloak this in harsh rhetoric to cover up a substantive emptiness. Your thoughts?

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Of course. When someone's going hunting and competition shooting such uses are perfectly fine and make perfect sense. However in reality politics and war *do* work very differently. War is about the efficient mass murder of people in carload lots with both sides devoting huge numbers of people to this. Politics in theory is about people working together for constructive ends. I find it weird to hear *any* politicians using that kind of rhetoric as it seems the exact opposite of what in theory should be the goal of politicians, namely to work together for the common wealth.

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

War is an extension of religion. The prehistoric God® was a vengeful one who demanded bloodshed, sacrifices, suffering. The birth of religion marked a departure from nature in the evolution of mankind. By practicing religion, one basically goes back to that moment 50-80,000 years ago when the first Neanderthal looked up at the stars and imagined himself as a greater version of being. God avenges himself on mankind because humans are incapable of raising above nature, although they try very hard. By practicing war, one fulfills God's vengeance and at the same time protects nature by killing people, who are anti-nature when they are not at war.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Except that in traditional religions and cultures the shedding of blood *always* attracted a stigma. Glorying in the lawful slaughter of others is a modern thing.

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

sort of, although it's not always "Thou shalt not kill":

Quran: verses (9:111; 3:169; 4:74; 4:95) are clearly ordering devout Muslims “to kill and be killed”;
Bible: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

Indian religions take exception though.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The Bible didn't say "Thou shalt not kill," either. It said "Thou shalt not murder."

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

What? No. God avenges himself on people because humans reject nature and build tall buildings and civilizations which reject the natural order of the created world in favor of systems of governance which perpetuate greed, exploitation, sin and Justin Bieber.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

I think that politicians use this terminology because voters respond to it. Talking tough gets more votes, it seems, than detailed explanations or sound reasoning.

armies exist to kill people
This isn't entirely true. Armies at war almost invariably kill people, but killing isn't their raison d'etre. An army's purpose is to achieve political objectives; if it can do so without killing anyone, so much the better. For example, NATO armies stationed in Europe didn't do a lot of killing during the Cold War, but they achieved their purpose by preventing a Soviet invasion.

the sole purpose of this is to ensure that soldiers kill
Even in war, an army's purpose is to achieve tactical and strategic objectives. Killing is a means to an end, not an end in itself. You can win a battle by forcing the enemy to retreat or surrender.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

I was in Germany in 1968, leading a heavy tank unit, right after the Soviets had invaded Czechoslovakia. We were told that if Soviet tank divisions crossed over into West Germany we could probably hold out for two weeks - less if nukes were deployed by either side. What prevented an invasion wasn't our presence; the Soviets had no intention of starting WWIII - they just wanted to stop Dubček's Prague Spring.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually it is *the* truth people refuse to admit. War achieves political objectives by mass murder. It's what war is, war means fighting and fighting means killing. To do otherwise prolongs a war until the killing times start and after that they do end. The NATO Armies stationed in Europe didn't kill anyone, but they were intended to execute plans that in practice were always over-sufficient to end civilization as we knew it. That the war never happened did not mean the plans and purposes were not there.

You can win a battle that way, yes. You cannot win a war that way unless you bag the entire enemy army at one go, and modern armies are too big for that.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

the terminology pervades everything, not just political speech. I hear words like target, strategy, war room, etc at my job all the time, and I work in IT. And look at sports.

War "speak" is prevalent in our culture because it's constant, it's everywhere, it's historical, and it's human.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

I think it's because - even though humans may deny it - we admire individuals who have a "kick-ass" attitude, with a high testosterone level. Generally, they are also the ones who don't actively engage in the actual ass-kicking, so they have no personal experience with the nitty-gritty of warfare.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

There's a lot of truth here.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Except that politics is built on a directly opposite premise from warfare. When wars are waged for purely political purposes they prove to be bloodbaths that produce half-solutions at best. It's a clash of rhetoric and purpose that doesn't suit well with what actually happens.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Yep, wars of containment, police actions, etc. are the result of saying war is an "extension of politics", when war should be viewed as a failure of politics.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I disagree. Politics is simply war fought with words.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

... without all that icky blood.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

And when words fail ...

Fist Fight In Italian Parliament As 'Dysfunctional' Government Threatens Euro Plans
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/10/26/eurozone-crisis-fist-fight_n_1032716.html

Turkish Parliament sees fresh fistfight among deputies
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-parliament-sees-fresh-fistfight-among-deputies.aspx?PageID=238&NID=17267&NewsCatID=338

Fist fight breaks out in Ukrainian parliament
http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2895081

Taiwanese MPs in parliament brawl
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6636237.stm

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

"Now, if people object to the term "killing" in regard to war, I repeat to you that in the words of Nathan Bedford Forrest war means fighting and fighting means killing. If the word bothers you, tough shit, that's what a war is."

Man that reminds me of a conversation with a Bible studies teacher back in highschool (it was a private school). This was back before we were just about to go to war in Afghanistan, said teacher was all like... Oh it'll be no big deal anyways, we have so much better military technology that we'd rarely loose soldiers on our side. I was like, dude war isn't going on some vacation, it's about killing people.

...

I can understand the other terms but strategy isn't necessarily a war term is it?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily, but the way it's employed it often is a war analogy. I think too often Americans lose sight of the fact that all our fancy military toys exist for the purpose of efficiently killing and maiming other human beings and turning buildings into charred, burned-out rubble. The only people who tend to see the reality of war are combat soldiers, most Americans simply don't comprehend this part or want to comprehend it. Which IMHO has at least a part of the warlike vocabulary here because we lose sight of just what war is.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

None of those things are necessarily exclusively, or even originally, military in nature.
All of that terminology can be applied to any number of other subjects just as easily.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

True, but the way they're employed in rhetoric can very much reflect a military origin. And it's almost impossible to claim the word tactics is not military. Using that word in particular is again something odd regardless of who uses it in a political, as opposed to military, discussion.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

Team sports is another area that relies on our militant nature. Teams battle and defeat each other as stand-ins for us. Worldwide competitions become sources of national pride and substitutes for our need to vanquish "the other."

Braggin' rights.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Do you also object to strategy board games or tactical games that aren't war related?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, as those are different things from what I'm talking about.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

In Heinlein's Podkayne of Mars, a politician character explained that politics was all talk because when people stop talking, they start killing each other.

As long as they're talking, why not use war speak? Anything to keep the talking happening.