"Lethal finish/non-lethal finish"--Is this new military lingo?

Here is a newspaper interview with Army Lt. Gen Joseph Votel, who has been nominated to succeed Navy Adm. William McRaven as commander of U.S. Special Operations Command.

In the exercept below, in the three passages I have italicized, it seems to me carefully thought-over phrases with attached doctrinal trails are being used; cf. the invention and spread of the “OODA-loop.” I’m not mocking them insofar as they are new bottles for new wine, but merely observing the language, and wondering if anyone has seen any of it before. Again, his usage below (and the care he must observe) leads me to think it’s not off-the-cuff, but truly new military argot.

An additional thought is that “lethal finish” ranks quite well with “terminating with prejudice” (although I understand the latter was invented by the writers for Apocalypse Now.)

“Gen. Votel said […] ‘how do we take that great methodology we refined over the last 12 or 13 years and apply it to areas outside of declared theaters of active armed conflict?’”

“He described that ‘methodology’ as a “kind of ‘*find, fix, finish, exploit, analyze’ *process — a way of looking at a problem and applying resources against it to come up with solutions[…]’”

“To that end, he highlighted three areas of technological focus for special operations. ‘First and foremost, I think is maintaining the situational awareness, resolution and reach, and access […]’”

“‘Second of all, we have to continue to improve our finish capability — whether it’s a lethal finish, or whether it’s a nonlethal finish, or whether it’s enabling someone else — to be as precise as we possibly can,’ he said."

"The third area of concern includes detecting and neutralizing chemical, biological and nuclear threats to U.S. interests."Italics added.

I think it’s War College General Jargon. You can see more here (doc).

When you’re making sweet, sweet love - remember to finish decisively.

Yes, “finish” is military lingo. Lethal and non-lethal finish seem to be relatively newer jargon.

Is that your only question? I feel like you were going for more, but I only see the question mark in the title.