Mar 20, 2019
Barack Obama unleashes "kinetic strikes” on Libya,
Hillary Clinton lobbies for "limited military coercion" in Syria,
Congress passes “robust sanctions” on Iran, and Trump gives “US
generals more room to run” as he “ramps up” “pressure” on ISIS. The
Center for American Progress calls for a “no fly zone” to “protect
civilians.” It’s important the US “engage” in the Middle East as it
“reasserts itself” on “the world stage,” and backs up “diplomacy”
with “military muscle.” While Russia "expands" its naval and
nuclear capacity the US merely “modernizes” its fleet or stockpile.
“All options are on the table” when discussing Venezuela and
Iran.
So
much of how we discuss US militarism and imperialism is laundered
through seemingly anodyne phrases, rhetorical thingamajigs that
vaguely gesture towards an idea without drawing up unseemly images
of what’s really being called for.
In
this two-part episode, we examine what’s being said, what’s being
left out when we use “foreign policy-speak,” and how writers can
avoid these lazy euphemisms, and instead make a concerted effort to
objectively describe the policy being advocated for rather than
relying on well-worn thought-terminating cliches that are designed
to do all of our thinking for us.
Our
guest is FAIR's Janine
Jackson.