LONDON, 21 March 2003 — This is an occasional series which decodes the military jargon
•Collateral damage: The UK Labour Party’s pugnacious chairman, John Reid, Wednesday announced the demise of this chilling euphemism, which describes the deaths of innocent people in conflict. “I do not like this terrible military phrase, collateral damage,” he said.
No longer will military spokesmen be able to stand on a podium, far from a war zone, and dismiss innocent deaths in abstract terms.
The change of language does not, however, herald a change in military tactics, according to Reid, who says the world should prepare for “unavoidable civilian deaths”. While his new phrase is more honest, some may wonder whether it says much for Anglo-American “smart” bombs, which are meant to hit solely military targets
•Catastrophic success: Amid their excitement at taking on a depleted and demoralised Iraqi Army, US commanders are talking about sweeping triumphantly into Baghdad in a “catastrophic success”. By catastrophe, they do not mean a disaster, because they are dismissing the idea of thousands of civilian casualties. Instead they are using a negative adjective — catastrophic — to emphasize the positive, in the way that anyone under 21 describes something that is “cool” as “wicked”
•Vertical envelopment: The Pentagon’s term for the preferred method of outflanking Iraqi forces by flying troops over them and then attacking from the rear or the sides.
