The Language of War

I was listening to a BBC news report on the radio earlier today about the recent fighting in Mogadishu, Somalia and something struck me about the way that the correspondent described the battle. He kept using the word "insurgents" to describe the fighters on one side of the conflict. As I listened to this, I began to wonder just when fighters on one side of a conflict became "insurgents.'" Specially in a country where there is no established government.

We don't seem to hear about guerrilla fighters any more, and anyone who seems to be fighting from a perceived extremist position is considered a terrorist. Which raises the question - What are they really?

It seems to me that the language of war has changed more that the reality. According to the dictionary, and insurgent is someone who rises in revolt to an established political party or system. In places like Somalia and Iraq one could argue that there is a vacuum of authority, in which case the people fighting may or may not be insurgents. Why are they not called rebels or, as I mentioned earlier, guerrillas?

I remember during Gulf War I that the generals used to talk about how we were attriting the enemy. Attrit is the back formation of the word attrition, but was virtually unheard of for centuries before the generals began using it. No we see it fairly frequently applied to all sorts of situations.

Another recent word, which has its origins in the last century is "enemy combatant," which is one of those legal definitions that should probably never have been unearthed in a public forum. If someone is my enemy and he is fighting against me, he is naturally an enemy combatant, regardless of whether he is fighting for a nation, or as a mercenary for some form of private army. I was recently in a business meeting where someone used this term to refer to a salesperson from another company. Is this right? Has the language of our recent wars become the description of choice when we describe anyone who is opposed to us.

Wars are a terrible thing and should only be fought for the most noble of causes, but should the language of war be carried over to our every day lives. Business has always been considered somewhat of a battleground, but until recently the language seemed so much more civilized.

No real point to this post, other than to get you thinking and ask the question: how much has the language of war changed over the years and where do we see it popping up in our every day lives.