Dulce et decorum: the marketing of war

Not everyone was impressed. A New York Times editorial called it 'Operation High Hokum', and an 'overreach of sentiment'. Several years later one critic called this attempt to portray a 'blatantly unjust invasion' as a 'morally righteous cause' a case of 'blatant propaganda' and 'an extremely cynical gambit'. Nonetheless, the marketing of war by the calculated nicknaming of operations has become standard American military and political operating procedure. In 2011 'Operation Odyssey Dawn', the mission in Libya, set new standards in obfuscation.

Such marketing is not confined to America, and has a long history in some countries. In a very impressive study of 239 names of Israeli military operations (76) and weaponry (163) used between 1948 and 2007, Israeli lecturer on culture and communication, Dalia Gavriely-Nuri concluded that 'perhaps the main purpose of militarynaming' is 'the subtle inculcation ofpositive attitudes toward the use of violence'. Writing in the journal Armed Forces and Society in 2009, she analysed the phenomenon of 'annihilative naming strategies', whereby the use of military violence was sanitised, normalised and shielded from scrutiny.

In the naming of Israeli military operations, 38% used names and concepts from the Bible, and 27% used names and concepts from nature. Using names from the Bible, which most Israelis study for at least ten years, implied that these operations continued Biblical leadership, promises and commands. Operation'Homat Magen' (Defense Wall), for example, was the massive attack in West Bank cities in 2002. Many names from nature (such as Operation Snow, the 1982-5 invasion of Lebanon) framed the use of force as 'a common, normal phenomenon, as if it were an integral part of the natural chain of events'. In general, these naming practices both tapped into and perpetuated a supportive Israeli 'cultural ethos regarding the use of military violence.' They also disavowed agency and responsibility by the Government and IDF.

Tis method of marketing war has become prominent in the West. Operation Desert Storm has become synonymous with the First Gulf War of 1991, while Operation Enduring Freedom (originally called Operation Infinite Justice, but changed for P.R. purposes) was the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. The invasion of Iraq was nearly called Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL), but became simply 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'. In September 2010 the war in Iraq was renamed 'Operation New Dawn'. Announcing the news the previous February, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in brilliant Orwellian Newspeak:

Aligning the name change with the change of mission sends a strong signal that Operation Iraqi Freedom has ended and our forces are operating under a new mission.

Even the word 'mission' reeks of self-justification and self-righteousness. But the fashion is ubiquitous, although the results aren't always propitious. The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 was called Operation Allied Force (OAF). The Russian military campaign repelling Georgia from South Ossetia in 2008 was called 'Operation Forcing Georgia to Peace'.

Closer to home is Exercise Talisman Sabre, the biennial joint Australia-United States military exercises carried out since 2005 in Northern Australia. The military claim there is no symbolic significance in the name; Australia provided the first word, the US provided the second. Obviously, however, since a talisman is 'an object supposedly endowed with magic powers' and a sabre is 'a heavy cavalry sword with a one-edged, slightly curved blade', the exercise name embodies the national military ethos of the participants.

The point of all these operational names is that they are marketing exercises. They are simply part of the armoury of weapons of mass deception deployed against the public. They imply that war and violence are normal, legitimate, necessary and praiseworthy, when in most cases none of these claims is true.