According to this news item (which may well be a temporary link), what began in 1989 as more or less a propaganda device has now been extended to inscriptions on the gravestones of some of the troops who died in Iraq.
Certainly the use of “Operation Enduring Freedom” fits nicely under the “glittering generalities” category of “Propaganda Techniques” that most of us learned in civics class. And the purpose of propaganda is to shape perceptions.
In previous wars the stones were inscribed with with name, rank, branch of service, date of death, the war and foreigh country in which the person served (if these last two are appropriate).
Now families of those who die are being told that they have the option to have “Operation Enduring Freedom” or “Operation Iraqi Freedom” added at no cost. The families are supposed to have the final say in the matter, but it doesn’t always work that way. (The article gives more details.)
Don’t misunderstand. I am for doing whatever helps the families feel some measure of comfort for their losses. I would not deny a single soldier or marine the right to the honor.
What really gnaws at me is the relentless effort on the part of the Administration and the Pentagon to shape the way that this hideously stupid war is seen and how it will be recalled in the future even when it means literally using propaganda over the dead bodies of our heroes.
I don’t think that a name will have any effect on how people see this war. Every war ever named has a name with rousing, glorious connotations to it. For instance, Vietnam had Flaming Dart, Rolling Thunder, and Linebackers I and II. Tough, aggressive, suitable names perfect for describing war. And yet we have no illusions about how Vietnam went, do we?
Propaganda is only effective if the people are buying. Some do, some don’t, but history has no emotions, and when people look back at this I think they’ll see that Iraqi Freedom is one of the great half-truths we’ve ever put out.
You know I’ve been seeing this story around, and I don’t really see the outrage. The only thing that would tweak me is if they inscribe something over the objections of the family. Am I missing something?
As the self-appointed SDMB expert on military codenames, I must point out this sort of thing has been going on way, way back.
The Canadian/British raid on Dieppe was planned as Operation Rutter (in '42). Churchill changed the name to Jubilee for exactly the reason that codenames must be picked with an eye toward the fact that people are going to die and that …
After all, the world is wide, and intelligent thought will readily supply an unlimited number of well-sounding names which do not suggest the character of the operation or disparage it in any way and do not enable some widow or mother to say that her son was killed in an operation called “Bunnyhug” or “Ballyhoo.”[22]
So anyway, codenames have always been, and should be chosen for the effect they might have on the families of the deceased (amongst other considerations).
FLAMING DART
FLAMING DART I (U.S. 65) The first United States air strikes on North Vietnam. Conducted on 7 February, 1965 by fighter-bombers from the aircraft carriers Coral Sea, Hancock and Ranger. The original plan called for ground-based aircraft from the South Vietnamese Air Force to join in the attack on the guerrilla base at Dong Hai, forty miles north of the Demilitarized Zone, but bad weather prevented them from taking off. President Johnson ordered the attack in retaliation for the raid on U.S. forces at Pleiku the night before. Followed by ROLLING HUNDER. See MAYFLOWER.
People whom I know on the credulous right are blasting this as “unpatriotic Bush bashing.” Wrong. Bush is giving them objectively-rational grounds for mockery. The story is newsworthy (and, I submit further, gives grounds for fair criticism) because:
This (not just naming operations, but using them on tombstones) has never been done before.
The trend of having focuse-grouped operation “brands” for EVERY operation is, further, relatively new.
This Administration has been observed in other contexts being relentlessly PR-conscious, and specifically, using the military as one of the poster-children for its spin, and the all purpose jingoistic defense for policies that arguably harm soldiers while doing nothing to advance the national sovereign interest.
Using people’s deaths for PR gain in any sense is gross. The bloody flag has often been waved in history. Doesn’t make it any more attractive or less suspicious, as a general proposition, when it’s invoked as a tactic.
Reasonable American families may not, upon reflection, wish or need their kids’ tombstones to be labeled for all eternity with a slogan that some marketing consultants came up with in 2003 to flog a war for later-discredited reasons, and may regret having their kids’ life (or service to what they thought was America’s safety and sovereignty) summed up as sacrificed for “Iraqi Freedom” (which is turning out to be a sad joke).
Once again, it bespeaks the dumb Administration’s contempt for the intelligence of Americans (whom they seemingly assume are incapable of honoring war dead or experiencing meaningful grief without a two-word slogan explaining why their death was honor-worthy, and whom they also assume dumb enough to believe the VA is acting completely independently of the Administration spin machine – they JUST SO HAPPENED to come up with this additional “service” for families RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME the Admin. was putting its spin into high gear).
I also feel bad for the military and the families – they are by disposition the most trusting and loyal of folk, and are so slow to believe that their leaders would misuse them, that it’s particularly galling when their personal grief is co-opted into ex post facto justification of some cynical (and stupid) geopolitical scheme cooked up by PNAC and the neocons. Because the people who forced us into the Iraq war had worldviews and priorities and values not necessarily reflective of those of the middle American families who actually sacrifice the soldiers (not too many fallen scions of the Wolfowitz or Perle or Feith families are being commemorated in Arlington, last I checked). Of course the families “didn’t object” when the VA told them this “service” was available or that it was simply another form of tribute to the soldiers’ bravery – soldiers’ families don’t question the brass, and want to believe that patriotism and honor are all that motivates the leadership.
I went to the cemetery in Berchtesgaden, Germany recently. There were dozens of tombstones for guys dying in 1942-45 that basically listed just a date of birth and death and "in Osten" ("In the East"). Simple and unadorned as this was, it gave plenty of cause for reflection and empathy, even a sort of honor for what they went through uncomplainingly for what they thought were the right reasons. On thinking about it, isn't it better that the German families, and even the regime, did not see a need to add "Operation Barbarossa" or "For the Herrenvolk (Master Race)," or to "enhance" the markers with a bunch of other regime-specific insignia and "messages" that would later prove (a) distracting to the very personal issue of grief; (b) embarrassing; (c) trivializing as to the families' ability to commemorate their mourning, and even take some pride in their family member's implied patriotism and sacrifice for homeland (albeit under a regime and rationale that no one would later defend)?
Isn't it scary that one of the most relentlessly totalitarian, politicized, propagandistic regimes and cultures in history never thought to politicize ordinary soldiers' gravestones in this specific fashion, and ours has?
I thought “Enduring Freedom” sounded super-lame. Don’t get me wrong, I’m anti war- BUT Desert Storm! sounded way more bad ass then lame ass sounding “Enduring Freedom”.
If you’re gunna have a war, make it a war- damnit. Sheesh.
When I was a kid, our 70’s Dodge Dart once had a fuel leak and had flames shooting from the bottom of it while stopped at a light.
The car didn’t actually catch of fire and burn, we just had it fixed and continued to drive it for many years. Now that I think about it, not only weren’t we lucky not to ne injured or killed, but it’s odd that the car didn’t actually catch on fire and burn out.
Sorry, 88. Factually, codenames were widely used by the Germans in WWI. (There may have been some prewar, but that is a matter of debate.) Naming operations is not new.
Further, as I pointed out, picking neato operations names dates back over fifty years ago. One reason for doing this was so as to not trivialize the deaths of soldiers.
As to Just Cause, lemme tell you. U.S. Southcom had (may still have) a block of letters our operations could start with. That is why we had Purple Storm, Bush Master, Blast Furnace (I liked that one) and Prayer Book. So when we had to come up with a name for the destruction of the regime in Panama USARSO (the lead agency) picked Blue Spoon.
We really did not think we were ever going to do it, and e thought it was amusing. Oddly that name went all the way up to Mad Max Thurmund (the CinC South), a humorless man with no change.
It was George Bush (the real one, not the one we have now) who exercised adult judgement and changed the name. He did for the same reason Churchill mentioned in his memo, so as to not trivialize a very serious event.
I’ll buy that if you say so. I’ll even buy that it was as universal then as it is now, arguendo.
But . . . they weren’t putting it or other jargon on tombstones for propaganda purposes (not at the civilian cemetery I was at, at least – perhaps someone’s seen a different practice at a German military cemetery).
I think it’s quite enough that so many Americans (and Brits and Iraqis) are dead as a result of the incompetence and obsession of one man. To use them as propaganda tools after they have already given their lives is unthinkable. Just when you think the Bush administration could get no more crass, they find a way to outdo themselves. Why not be honest and inscribe “Operation Enrich Haliburton”?
