When a nation is gearing up for war, the words its leaders use areimportant -- and follow a predictable pattern, according to politicalscience Professor Francis Beer of the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Beer, who specializes in the study of war and peace, has carefullyexamined politicians' use of words in conflicts of the 20th century.
The Sept. 11 attacks, for example, were most often compared withPearl Harbor, and the U.S. response generally has been referred to as the"War on Terrorism."
"If Sept. 11 equals Pearl Harbor, then we are at war," Beer said."But that's only one of the possible meanings of Sept. 11, and as we moveforward other meanings will become evident. The words, thoughts andactions will change."
Language is always used to establish the meaning of a nationalcatastrophe and to prepare people for the actions that follow, Beer said.
In his latest book, "Meanings of War and Peace," he gives special attentionto the congressional debates leading to U.S. actions in the Gulf War and Somalia.
Beer was joined by colleagues in co-authoring some chapters,including Professor G. Robert Boynton of the University of Iowa in a chapter on the language of war.
The initial words chosen by political leaders to describe an impending conflict are human, direct and filled with powerful images designed to evoke an emotional response, Beer said. It is a pattern found throughout all major conflicts.
If the events of Sept. 11 had been described as the work of criminals rather than an act of war, another meaning and course of action would have ensued, he said. A natural catastrophe, such as a great earthquake, evokes yet another type of response.
In President George W. Bush's speech to the nation on Sept. 20, one of the first images evoked was of passengers on the airplane that crashed in Pennsylvania fightingwith terrorist hijackers in order to save other Americans from being killed.
"When he does this he creates images in people's minds that prefigure a certain course of action," Beer said.
Bush's Sept. 20 speech marked the end of the first of three identifiable phases, and in two later stages the language becomes more nuanced and complicated, Beer said. The images will become less powerful and more abstract in a second phase, and even more so in a third phase when politicians will begin discussing an exit strategy.
President Bush already has modified his language since the day of the attack.
The word "crusade" resonated badly among Muslims so the administration backed off the use of that word and also changed the name of the operation from "Infinite Justice" to "Enduring Freedom." Such changes reflect the feedback President Bush has received to his choice of language, Beer said.
Another recent example of the power of language is the outrage that ensued when Timothy McVeigh used the term "collateral damage" to describe children killed in the Oklahoma City bombing. Such words were used by McVeigh to dehumanize the children and shocked most Americans, Beer said.
"Language is very powerful. It makes a lot of difference if you call it collateral damage or call it murder -- and the only difference is the words," Beer said. "It's like software in the mind -- the power of the word is in its ability to activate different images and different patterns of actions."
Paying attention to the words that political leaders use to describe a conflict will help people prepare for the actions that will follow.
"Think about different interpretations -- not just how it looks to you -- but how it looks to other people," Beer said. "If you just focus on your own grief and your own meaning you're not going to get the best possible outcome. Different patterns of actions unfold from different interpretations."