Dear Editor,
Your article titled “Time for a Newspeak checkup!” published on Apr. 10 is profoundly misinformed. The article asserts that “In the first months of the Obama administration, a disquieting trend has emerged: wrapping up ugly political truths in shiny new language to bury or beautify the negative connotations and public opinion they carry.”
The article cites two examples of this allegedly disquieting trend. First, the Obama administration no longer uses the Bush administration’s “War on Terror” jargon but instead refers to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as “overseas contingency operations.” administration’s switch from referring to the wars in Iraq. As the second example, the article mentions how the administration’s bank rescue plan refers to what the media calls “toxic assets” as “legacy assets.”
This article could have used some basic fact checking.
“Legacy assets” is a technical term that has been part of standard economics for many years, as a quick Google search of the term will immediately reveal: “Legacy assets are those assets which are less productive (outdated) and in some cases least productive overtime, they are just on the brink of being a liability. When assets lose considerable value they are often termed as legacy assets.”
Likewise, “contingency operations” is actually a legal term that has a very specific meaning: A military operation that is either designated by the Secretary of Defense as a contingency operation or becomes a contingency operation as a matter of law. It is a military operation that: a.) is designated by the Secretary of Defense as an operation in which members of the Armed Forces are or may become involved in military actions, operations or hostilities against an enemy of the United States or against an opposing force; or b.) is created by definition of law.
Under 10 USC 101 (a)(13)(B), a contingency operation exists if a military operation results in the a.) callup to (or retention on) active duty of members of the uniformed services under certain enumerated statutes (10 USC Sections 688, 12301(a), 12302, 12304, 12305, 12406, or 331-335); and b.) the callup to (or retention on) active duty of members of the uniformed services under other (non-enumerated) statutes during war or national emergency declared by the president or Congress.
One of Obama’s campaign promises was to stop using the zealous rhetoric of the Bush administration and actually call things what they really are. Following up on that that promise, the International Commission of Jurists urged the Obama administration to drop the phrase “war on terror.” They did so, consulted that law, and realized that the correct legal term to use was “overseas contingency operation.”
If there is a criticism of Obama here, it is that the Obama administration is overly technocratic, and is taking technical terminology from the legal and economic domains, and using them in the political arena. But the idea that Obama has set out to cover up the true nature of his policies by inventing new terminology that would be “bamboozlingly bureaucratic, pushing out the red-toothed fervor of “war” in favor of gray, wordy and forgettable phraseology,” as your article erroneously asserts, is way off base.
Don’t forget that during the campaign Obama said over and over that he a wanted to tone down the political rhetoric and the party allegiances and replace it with a meritocracy of highly competent technocrats who would be focused on solving problems. The terminology you highlight is actually evidence that Obama is doing exactly what he promised to do.
Yes, we need a real debate on things like the bank rescue and the escalation of the war in Afghanistan. But we need an informed debate. Unfortunately, the article in question does not pass that measure.
