By IPS Correspondents
ISTANBUL, Mar 23 2003 (IPS)

Momentous occasions generate their own language in war or in peace. What will be the legacy of the war on Iraq?

Think of what we have heard so far in "Operation Iraqi freedom", coming 12 years after "Desert Storm". We have "shock and awe" of course, though many would prefer Aristotle’s demand that tragedy must evoke "pity and terror".

There is "precision targeting", there are "smart bombs" doing their bit to unearth one day those "weapons of mass destruction" or at least to bring "regime change".

Momentous occasions generate their own language in war or in peace. What will be the legacy of the war on Iraq?

Think of what we have heard so far in "Operation Iraqi freedom", coming 12 years after "Desert Storm". We have "shock and awe" of course, though many would prefer Aristotle’s demand that tragedy must evoke "pity and terror".

There is "precision targeting", there are "smart bombs" doing their bit to unearth one day those "weapons of mass destruction" or at least to bring "regime change".

The killing of civilians in bombing is now "collateral damage". Military targets that are blown to bits have simply been "taken out". Language finds its own way of distancing attacks led from behind a computer screen from their consequences in the real world.

And then there will be the rest of President George W. Bush’s "Axis of Evil" to deal with, though who knows whether there will again be a "coalition of the willing" where most are at least a little unwilling. History is scattered with many phrases of such times. From the Roman emperor Julius Caesar’s "Et tu Brutus?" to German leader Otto von Bismarck’s "Politics is not an exact science" or former French President Charles de Gaulle’s "I respect only those who resist me; but I cannot tolerate them" to Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev’s "Politicians are the same all over: they promise to build a bridge even where there is no river."

The language of one day can of course hold for an event of another age. "Et tu Chirac?" Or think of former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt who said "Speak softly, and carry a big stick". The U.S. style in Operation Iraqi Freedom, that is.

Another former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson had spoken of "making the world safer for democracy" in trying to shake his country out of its isolation during World War I. Same sentiment now, and not entirely dissimilar isolation.

In language that became famous are also the words that became infamous. Between the two world wars, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain thought he had secured "peace for our time" with Nazi Germany, only to be proven wrong within months. Remember also that "mother of all battles".

Nothing works in propaganda quite like the phrase that sticks. Former British prime minister Winston Churchill’s description of the Soviet bloc as the land behind the "iron curtain" defined generations of diplomacy over what became the "Cold War".

And his claim after the Battle of Britain in support of pilots of the Royal Air Force that "never in the history of mankind have so many owed so much to so few" became the defining words of that battle – even though they are disputed, and even though the claims they were based on were proved false. Records show now that Churchill’s claims of German aircraft shot down were exaggerated two to three times.

Churchill, who was later awarded the Nobel Prize for literature, left a rush of one-liners. "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat," he remarked. Less patiently, he said when faced with a demand for more fighting men: "What do you expect me to do? Go out on the street and produce them?"

Some language was inevitably seen as famous by some, and infamous by others. Few have a stronger claim to split fame than former U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Good people who die and go to heaven will find its gates guarded by the U.S. marines, he said. He was after all, president of "God’s chosen land".

Reagan warned of the Soviets as the "evil empire". But the promised "peace dividend" that followed the end of that empire brought neither peace nor dividend. The years of the supposed peace dividend became infamous as the years of "ethnic cleansing".

"I shall return", U.S. General Douglas MacArthur vowed as he left the Philippines during the heat of World War II, and he did. Others fall apart. Washington’s "Alliance for Progress" for South America in the 1960s became an alliance with dictators. Progress was doubtful.

Chairman Mao was seen in the West as leader of the "Gang of Four". After the "Cultural Revolution" this became simply the "Gang of Five". But never quite behind the "bamboo curtain".

Phrases have a way of sticking, depending on the use of words – and of the power of those using them.

The "neutral bloc" between East and West at the height of the Cold War, the group of non-aligned nations, never really took hold. Nor did "The Group of 77" or even "Pax Americana". Notions of "Uncle Sam" soon became out of date.

That "Ich bin ein Berliner" (I am a Berliner)from John F. Kennedy by way of a challenge to communist East Germany did not catch on outside Germany. For one thing, it was in German, for another it lacked the music of "Et tu Brutus". The list goes on.

The jury is still out on "universal human rights", "conflict resolution" and the like. Many wait to hear the language of the day when conflicts do get resolved.

Excerpt:

By IPS Correspondents
ISTANBUL, Mar 23 2003 (IPS)

Momentous occasions generate their own language in war or in peace. What will be the legacy of the war on Iraq?

Think of what we have heard so far in "Operation Iraqi freedom", coming 12 years after "Desert Storm". We have "shock and awe" of course, though many would prefer Aristotle’s demand that tragedy must evoke "pity and terror".

There is "precision targeting", there are "smart bombs" doing their bit to unearth one day those "weapons of mass destruction" or at least to bring "regime change".

The killing of civilians in bombing is now "collateral damage". Military targets that are blown to bits have simply been "taken out". Language finds its own way of distancing attacks led from behind a computer screen from their consequences in the real world.

And then there will be the rest of President George W. Bush’s "Axis of Evil" to deal with, though who knows whether there will again be a "coalition of the willing" where most are at least a little unwilling.

History is scattered with many phrases of such times. From the Roman emperor Julius Caesar’s "Et tu Brutus?" to German leader Otto von Bismarck’s "Politics is not an exact science" or former French President Charles de Gaulle’s "I respect only those who resist me; but I cannot tolerate them" to Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev’s "Politicians are the same all over: they promise to build a bridge even where there is no river."

The language of one day can of course hold for an event of another age. "Et tu Chirac?" Or think of former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt who said "Speak softly, and carry a big stick". The U.S. style in Operation Iraqi Freedom, that is.

Another former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson had spoken of "making the world safer for democracy" in trying to shake his country out of its isolation during World War I. Same sentiment now, and not entirely dissimilar isolation.

In language that became famous are also the words that became infamous. Between the two world wars, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain thought he had secured "peace for our time" with Nazi Germany, only to be proven wrong within months. Remember also that "mother of all battles".

Nothing works in propaganda quite like the phrase that sticks. Former British prime minister Winston Churchill’s description of the Soviet bloc as the land behind the "iron curtain" defined generations of diplomacy over what became the "Cold War".

And his claim after the Battle of Britain in support of pilots of the Royal Air Force that "never in the history of mankind have so many owed so much to so few" became the defining words of that battle – even though they are disputed, and even though the claims they were based on were proved false. Records show now that Churchill’s claims of German aircraft shot down were exaggerated two to three times.

Churchill, who was later awarded the Nobel Prize for literature, left a rush of one-liners. "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat," he remarked. Less patiently, he said when faced with a demand for more fighting men: "What do you expect me to do? Go out on the street and produce them?"

Some language was inevitably seen as famous by some, and infamous by others. Few have a stronger claim to split fame than former U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Good people who die and go to heaven will find its gates guarded by the U.S. marines, he said. He was after all, president of "God’s chosen land".

Reagan warned of the Soviets as the "evil empire". But the promised "peace dividend" that followed the end of that empire brought neither peace nor dividend. The years of the supposed peace dividend became infamous as the years of "ethnic cleansing".

"I shall return", U.S. General Douglas MacArthur vowed as he left the Philippines during the heat of World War II, and he did. Others fall apart. Washington’s "Alliance for Progress" for South America in the 1960s became an alliance with dictators. Progress was doubtful.

Chairman Mao was seen in the West as leader of the "Gang of Four". After the "Cultural Revolution" this became simply the "Gang of Five". But never quite behind the "bamboo curtain".

Phrases have a way of sticking, depending on the use of words – and of the power of those using them.

The "neutral bloc" between East and West at the height of the Cold War, the group of non-aligned nations, never really took hold. Nor did "The Group of 77" or even "Pax Americana". Notions of "Uncle Sam" soon became out of date.

That "Ich bin ein Berliner" (I am a Berliner)from John F. Kennedy by way of a challenge to communist East Germany did not catch on outside Germany. For one thing, it was in German, for another it lacked the music of "Et tu Brutus". The list goes on.

The jury is still out on "universal human rights", "conflict resolution" and the like. Many wait to hear the language of the day when conflicts do get resolved.

Excerpt: