This is an argument that is primarily aimed at those living with the immediate impact of the German deployment – the Afghans. Jung’s concern is that if the German government were to talk openly about a war, they would be seen even more as an occupying force.

If the German government confessed to waging war, it would also mean that the primarily defensive strategy against attacks was no longer possible. It could also become more difficult to deflect demands from allies for more comprehensive military operations.

On the other hand – and this argument belongs with the weak reasons – not using a war lexicon has something to do with the German public. After the “Peace Operations” failed to ga...

This is an argument that is primarily aimed at those living with the immediate impact of the German deployment – the Afghans. Jung’s concern is that if the German government were to talk openly about a war, they would be seen even more as an occupying force.

If the German government confessed to waging war, it would also mean that the primarily defensive strategy against attacks was no longer possible. It could also become more difficult to deflect demands from allies for more comprehensive military operations.

On the other hand – and this argument belongs with the weak reasons – not using a war lexicon has something to do with the German public. After the “Peace Operations” failed to gain much traction, there is apparently a fear that support for a war would face even more opposition. In an election year, this is a debate the governing coalition doesn’t want.

But if the choice of words is supposed to be about acknowledging the dangers that the soldiers face, then direct language would, in this case, be much more honest than indirect war rhetoric. Besides, the public isn’t buying into these linguistic gymnastics anyway.


“We should be careful when we use pathos in this country,” said Christian Schmidt, the German parliamentary liaison to the Defence Ministry, as he recently tried to explain his rejection of the word “war.”

But don’t the terms “fallen” and “wounded” evoke far greater sympathy? Are they not even more dishonest? Don’t they, in connection with war, have a much more sanctimonious sound? Something we hoped we’d never have to hear in this country again? The related English term is much less lofty but all the more exact: “Killed in action.”

At least the defence minister has so far refrained from using the phrase: “Fallen for the Fatherland.” Instead, German soldiers are dying “for peace.”

http://www.thelocal.de/opinion/20090625-20191.html