Words, Words, And More Words

I haven't been writing much these days, in part due to a stubborn bug I've been battling, and in part because I often wonder if there really is much more to say that I haven't already said over the years. However, today I read an article that seems particularly germane to our troubled times, and hence, back into the fray for another go.

Ever since I was very young, I have had an avid interest in the English language, an interest no doubt fostered by my love of reading. That love of books led me into a career as an English teacher, and it was while teaching Grade 13 (OAC) that I think I began to truly appreciate the often insidious power of language. George Orwell's Politics and The English Language, about which I have written in the past, here, here and here, is especially instructive in that regard.

One of Orwell's key warnings revolved around the political use of euphemisms, words that often mask some unpleasant truths. We use them all the time without ill-intent (think, for example, of referring to the deceased as having 'passed away', or a beloved pet that has been 'put to sleep'). However, those in positions of power, whether they be, for example, employers or politicians, often use them to pervert or conceal truth. Consider, for example, the last time you heard that someone was fired, axed or terminated. These days, people are 'laid off' or 'furloughed'. Nice not to have to think too closely about the desperation that unemployment can bring, isn't it?

But the above illustration is still pretty innocuous. In his column today, Rick Salutin has some thoughts about the more sinister of use language:

Since this is the season for Word of the Year nominations, like quid pro quo and CBD, let me propose a late entry and long-shot (whoops, bad word choice): contractor. As in this report on the backstory to the assault by Iraqis on the grandiose, irritating U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad: “The U.S. carried out military strikes in Iraq and Syria targeting an Iranian-backed Iraqi militia blamed for a rocket attack that killed an American contractor.”

Contractor? Was this person renovating a basement suite in Fallujah or reshingling a roof in Mosul? Nope. Though details aren’t given, this is almost certainly what was earlier known as a defence contractor and before that, by the perfectly adequate word, mercenary. They’ve existed since the dawn of warfare and came into major use with the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. It has taken since then to get “defence” dropped from the term but it was worth the effort.

The omission makes “contractor” a high-value obfuscator in a league with “collateral damage” for innocent victims, “enhanced interrogation” for torture, “extraordinary rendition” for kidnapping, etc. It’s a creative area.

Why this evolution (devolution?) of mercenary?

The UN has a “convention” prohibiting mercenaries that was initiated, perhaps prophetically, in 2001, at the start of the endless, U.S.-incited wars in the Mideast. (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen). UN conventions are fairly easy to create but fade after that, since they must be signed, ratified, declared etc. Only 35 nations signed this one, not including the U.S., U.K. and Israel, the big providers of mercs. Canada signed but didn’t ratify.

But there is another reason as well, one that has allowed private companies to accrue huge profits at the public's expense:

Before the post-millennium invasions, the U.S. miltary-to-merc ratio was about 50-1. It has since dropped to 10-1. They often contract through the CIA and take up about half its payrolls.

By 2006, there were about 100,000 “contractors” in Iraq, most of them ex-U. S. military, trained on the taxpayers’ dime. They were actors in horrors like Abu Ghraib and Fallujah. When you hear about the U.S. removing its last 5,000 troops there (unlikely at best since, in fact, they’re adding forces), you should know there are still 7,000 contractors who aren’t going anywhere.

And so our 'masters' continue their rampant pillaging, public accountability becoming merely an increasingly quaint notion.

So what is to be learned from this? Perhaps only one thing: the prescience and the ongoing relevance of George Orwell's insights, almost 75 years after he wrote Politics and the English Language.