Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What's in a Name? Quite a Lot, Where the Military Is Concerned
Churchill objected to names of a frivolous nature and banned Operation Bunnyhug
I am bemused by the name of Israel's latest military operation against Hamas (and the usual cull of toddlers) in Gaza. The Israeli military calls it Operation Cast Lead. Come again? "Cast Iron" I might understand, though it would woefully misrepresent Israel's policies since they will in due course talk to the "blood-soaked terrorists" of Hamas when it suites their purposes just as they eventually talked to the "blood-soaked terrorists" of the PLO.
Armies like to tell us that their operational names come from a computer though I always doubted this. Operation Iraqi Freedom did not come from a computer. Operation Litani - Israel's hopeless 1978 invasion of Lebanon - didn't come from a computer either. Nor did Operation Peace for Galilee - the even more hopeless 1982 invasion of Lebanon that took the Israeli army to Beirut and infamy at Sabra and Chatila. Besides, the real military name of Peace for Galilee was Operation Snowball. And as we all know, snowballs get bigger as they roll downhill.
Perhaps it's nostalgia for real history, but I always thought the armies of the Second World War had a better flair for names. Operation Overlord - D-Day on 6 June 1944 - was a real cracker. So was Operation Torch (the invasion of North Africa), though Operation Market Garden - the landings at Arnhem - pretty much reflected its dismal results.
Nazi Germany's ferocious Operation Barbarossa - the invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941 - was named after the 12th-century King Frederick of Germany and chief executive officer of the Holy Roman Empire. The much postponed and cancelled German invasion of England in 1940 would have been Operation Sea Lion - Winston Churchill must have appreciated that - although my graduate research into Irish neutrality in the Second World War revealed that Germany's tentative plans to invade de Valera's island was to have been called merely Operation Green. Well, it would, wouldn't it?
Churchill himself had strong views about such nomenclature. Indeed, a largely forgotten disquisition on the subject can be found in a memo he wrote to General Hastings Lionel "Pug" Ismay, his chief of staff, on 8 August 1943. "Operations in which large numbers of men may lose their lives," Churchill wrote, "ought not to be described by code words which imply boastful and overconfident sentiment, such as 'Triumphant', or, conversely, which are calculated to invest the plan with an air of despondency, such as 'Woebetide', 'Massacre', 'Jumble', 'Trouble', 'Fidget', 'Flimsy', 'Pathetic', and 'Jaundice'."
Churchill also objected to "names of a frivolous character" and therefore banned Operations Bunnyhug, Billingsgate, Aperitif and Ballyhoo.
"After all," Churchill added, "the world is wide and intelligent thought will readily supply an unlimited number of well-sounding names which do not suggest the character of the operation or disparage it in any way and do not enable some widow or mother to say that her son was killed in an operation called 'Bunnyhug' or 'Ballyhoo'."
Churchill preferred proper names, the heroes of antiquity, figures from Greek and Roman mythology, the constellations and stars, famous racehorses - was it a ghost of this idea that persuaded the Ministry of Defence to call its 1990 airlift of troops to Saudi Arabia Operation Ascot? - and the names of British and American war heroes. As usual, Churchill was a bit preachy. "Care should be taken in all this process," he wrote. "An efficient and successful administration manifests itself equally in small as in great matters." If only.
The Americans followed Churchill's advice when they decided to organise a coup to overthrow the democratically elected Mohammad Mossadeq of Iran in 1953. They called it Operation Ajax, though this might actually have fallen into Churchill's "despondency" bracket. Ajax was second only to Achilles in bravery, but he killed himself in a fit of madness. "Monty" Woodhouse, MI5's man in Tehran, chose a more prosaic name for the whole fandango: Operation Boot.
Muslim armies tend to be a little tiresome in their operational titles. During the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranians named their attacks after prayers and then gave them numbers. The Fajr ("Dawn") operation was followed, I'm afraid, by Fajr Two, Fajr Three, Fajr Four and so on. Not very inventive. I guess the most frightening Middle Eastern name of all was Israel's Operation Grapes of Wrath, which reached its appalling end after Israeli artillerymen killed 106 Lebanese civilians - more than half of them children - in the south Lebanese village of Qana in 1996.
Operation Grapes of Wrath was no tribute to John Steinbeck but took its name from the blood-and-vengeance Book of Deuteronomy wherein chapter 32, the song of Moses before he dies leading his Jewish people towards the promised land, speaks of those who will be destroyed by the wrath of God. "The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young men and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of grey hairs," announced verse 25.
Not a bad description of the Qana massacre. And this week, not a bad account of Israel's Gaza shenanigans. Maybe the Israelis should take a leaf out of Iran's book and call it Operation Grapes of Wrath Two.
- Posted in
41 Comments so far
Show AllThe only 'cast lead' I know of refers to the forging of toy soldiers back in the pre-plastic days when radio cases were made of Bakelite. The lead soldiers were soft and easily malleable, the crude casting process often turned out distorted figures, and they had an annoying tendency to get quickly lost. This would seem to be a pretty accurate description of what the neocon Israeli government is perpetrating with this operation in Gaza, including the antiquated approach of using massive force to defeat a guerilla army -- it's as outmoded as Bakelite, but much less useful.
And there was the memorable and very British sounding Operation Market Garden, so designated for the disaster at Arnhem, and immortalized in the book and film "A Bridge Too Far"
On Counterpunch a few days ago was an interesting article about the name Cast Lead.
http://counterpunch.org/fernandez12292008.html
Perhaps Operation "Cast Lead" has a duble entendre...
As in to cast the lead role in a dramatic theatre of war...
The israelis and their British and American handlers know full well that a ground invasion into Gaza may trigger what the incursions into Lebanon were not able to do...
Which is to get a significant violent response from Hamas to justify another land grab...
A "final solution" to the Gaza problem the israeli brass have been longing for sixty years...
What is sad, is that the world 'leaders' watches as genocide is committed in the of WOT. And the US media has become Israels propaganda tool with a blackout on anything critical of the apartheid nation.
Anyone who even dares voice support to the Palestinians are considered terrorist sympathizers. all avenue of providing any form of donations to Palestine is shut down. And then they ask where are the Muslims trying to help the Palestinians? How do you do that when all avenues are considered illegal.
I can only hope that what goes around comes around. ANd I hope Israel rots to its core, and everyone that supports it, rots along with that disgraceful state!
Horrified January 3rd, 2009 4:32 pm, please don't repeat the mistake of some in the Israeli government who consider all Palestinians 'Arab terrorists.' Large numbers of the Israeli public and military oppose Olmert's armed aggression, just as a substantial amount of Americans were and are against Bush's bellicosity in the Middle East.
Solving the problems there won't begin by classifying all Israelis as one way and all Palestinians as another -- like the peace process, it's much more complex and subtle than that, and we need to approach it that way. Fortunately, I think Obama will approach it in a much more nuanced and less partisan way than Bush, which is why the neocon Olmert government is getting in its last licks during Junior's final days.
Who cares if Fisk is 'bemused by the name of Israel's latest military operation against Hamas'? Would the pain felt by Gazans be any different if it was named differently? This is a totally frivolous article - one of those kinds that gives away the insensitivity and the flippant nature of the writer, who otherwise appears to be a reasonable person. I do now know much about Robert Fisk. But it is apparent from this article that he, like countless others, seems to put Winston Churchill on somewhat of a pedestal. Just as in the case of the Israeli/Palestinian situation, most people would rather live with a one-sided and filtered view of history when it comes to Churchill and his 'exploits'.
My own views about Churchill were in keeping with the mainstream view, but gradually, over the years, as I came to know more and more about his British-supremacist, colonial power mentality, I had to change my views. He clearly had the gift of the gab - basically a big mouth. But many people seem to forget that this big mouth would have been forced to eat humble pie by the Germans if it weren't for the timely help of the Americans, Canadians (which the British pretty much took for granted) and literally millions of foot soldiers from Britain's colonies - such as India. All for what? Freedom for who? And what happened after the war? Churchill was dead set against letting go of the colonies, because Britain was in debt, and the colonies had the resources that Britain needed. He had such utter contempt for the people of India, who he called "a beastly people with a beastly religion". His contempt was particularly severe for Gandhi, and Churchill clearly wanted Gandhi dead. When Britain was diverting food supplies from its colonies to its war efforts and there was a famine in a part of India, Churchill replied to a telegram from the Governor General in India asking why Gandhi hadn't starved to death yet.
This is not the time for frivolous articles, no matter how reputed the writer is. Certainly no one needs a frivolous article (let alone a reprint in CD) that also gratuitously, though unintentionally, heaps praise on to a man who has a dark side that is not so well known.
Highintel: Can we do better?
Alcyon, I feel you have written a very thoughtful post, however you are correct -- you really don't know much about Fisk. I always read his articles as they come up here on Common Dreams, and he is always right on. He is a man of depth and passion...and compassion. But I think he has grown weary of all the extreme violence he has seen around the world. As a reporter he has seen it all. The things that I only read about, he has seen, in black and white, and splattered with red blood all over. Like every article he writes, this is a good one.
"Operation Iraqi Freedom did not come from a computer" No computer, the name came from the sophomoric minds of the cowards that initiated this attack. Lets not dignify it with war. Iraq had about as much chance against us as Iceland would.
"Shock and Awe" tells you everything about Cheney and his pals.
Alcyon
P.S. Many times great men have great flaws, it doesn't mean they aren't great men.
He was resopnsible for Gallipoli in the first world war. A disaster of epic proportions. But without him we might very well hasve been speaking German. Don't forget the pacifist's between the wars left us almost defenseless. If they hadn't held Hitler off along with the Russians, we wouldn't have had the time we needed. We were hard pressed by the Japanese at first.
Thomas More, I do not want to get into a revisionist exercise on World War II. Any fool or a scoundrel or a greedy man can momentarily rise up to do something great. And I'm sure he'll find enough admirers. But for someone to be accept as great, universally, his character and humanity would have to stand out through his lifetime. I do not see that in Churchill. My whole point was to poke holes on the popular myth surrounding Churchill - which is entirely one-sided - an Anglo-centric view, that even ignores the contributions of other 'Anglos' such as the Americans and the Canadians. It was a World War - so there cannot be any simplistic explanations, I agree. But let us not forget that America entering the war helped save Britain and its empire, more than the other way around.
Highintel: Can we do better?
Alcyon
"I do not want to get into a revisionist exercise on World War II."
Good idea!
I just feel Churchill stood out during his whole lifetime...good and bad. Just different viewpoints.
"But let us not forget that America entering the war helped save Britain and its empire, more than the other way around."
I agree, we saved all their rears....lost their Empire anyway after the war.
By declaring war upon the Axis after Pearl Harbor, the US had it's own interests and behind to preserve in shoring up the Allies in Europe. Had the Japanese never attacked Hawaii, the US may well have been less 'altruistically' inclined towards saving Imperial butt.
Even with the Japanese attack, it still boggles the mind that Hitler declared war on us. Why he would do it I'll never know.
The Imperial butt might have been in danger.
LIke all post-WWII children growing up in triumphant USA, I learned the facts you and RSJ cite. However, a closer scrutiny of the pre-WWII history shows both the US and Britain much more cunning than their approved history would indicate.
In Europe, Britain (as Churchill illustrates in his four volume history of WWII) had repeated opportunities to stand with the rest of Europe and stop Naci Germany. Why they didn't do so until after the invasion of Poland is suggested by the title of the Treaty which we call "the Axis", but whose signatories called "The Anti-Comminterm Treaty" and pledged such signatories to implacable opposition to international communism (and by implication to the Soviet Union which was its source at that time.)
The Tory governments of Baldwin and Chanberlin despised communism as much as the Nazis and fervantly hoped that both Germany and The Soviet Union would bleed each other white so that Britain and France could walk in and pick up the pieces. That's why after declaring war in '39 the British Expeditionary force just sat on its ass along with the French and did not much of anything for tne nearly half a year after the commencement of WWII.
This allowed the Nazi's to gobble up Poland and (it was hoped) proceed into Soviet Russia. Imagine ol' Winnie's shock when, instead, Germany gobbled up France, Scandanavia, the Low Countries, and started bombing Britain. Oh what to do, what to do? The invasion of Russia was still a year and a half away, a nexpeditionary force wasbeing assembled for the invasion of Britain, and Rommel was racing across North Africa and threatening to cut the supply jugular known as the Suez Canal.
Britain needed America for an ally and the US electorate was not about to stand for another world war helping out Britain unless...Suddenly FDR and the American position became much harder in their dealing with Japan and when the US decided to blockade oil shipments to Japan, it was a 30 day ultimatum to the Japanese which required them to either surrender their sovereignty to the US or go to war.
Not surprisingly they chose the latter course. (Look at all the military operations the US is doing in the Middle East to preserve their oil supplies)
War with Japan was required in order for both Germany and Italy to also declare war against the US (which they were required to do and did 6+ hours earlier on 12/8/41) which allowed the US to reciprocate without initiating the hostilities.
The fascists had no business engaging in the imperialistic adventures they did, but neither did Churchill and Roosevelt in sitting on their asses in the hopes that Germany or Japan would knock off the Soviets (whose ferocious and more accurtately named "war against fascism" was what really beat the German war machine).
Poet
Poet January 4th, 2009 2:01 pm. I have to disagree with some of your statements and conclusions.
"In Europe, Britain (as Churchill illustrates in his four volume history of WWII) had repeated opportunities to stand with the rest of Europe and stop Naci Germany."
Well, actually, the British Army was weak, under-equipped compared to the Germans, and over-extended maintaining their fading empire. If Churchill had abandoned the empire and brought all British forces into Europe to defeat Hitler, what you say might be true, but the King and the Paliament would never have allowed this. (Two examples of English military weakness would be the fall of Singapore in 1942 and the defeat at Dunkirk in 1940. If Hitler had pressed his advantage and massacred the British on the beaches at Dunkirk, the British Army wouldn't have had a core of experienced officers and NCO's around which to rebuild the army. The Germans could then have walked into London and all of the US lend-lease equipment in the world would not have saved them.)
"The Tory governments of Baldwin and Chanberlin despised communism as much as the Nazis and fervantly hoped that both Germany and The Soviet Union would bleed each other white so that Britain and France could walk in and pick up the pieces. That's why after declaring war in '39 the British Expeditionary force just sat on its ass along with the French and did not much of anything for tne nearly half a year after the commencement of WWII."
While there is some truth to the first sentence, the main reason for British inactivity was due to the military weakness I previously cited. As for your second sentence, please read about the Maginot Line -- both British and French commanders stupidly thought it would keep the Germans out of France and, again, both armies were weak compared to the Nazi war machine.
"This allowed the Nazi's to gobble up Poland and (it was hoped) proceed into Soviet Russia."
You lost me here. British entry into WWII began when the Germans invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. The British did not 'allow' the Nazis to 'gobble up' Poland, but they were afraid of engaging the Nazis with subpar arms from the last war, which is mostly what the British and French had to fight with in the early years of WWII. It was following Hitler's invasion of Poland that France fell in 1940, not before or during. Here's a timeline of the events: http://www.world-war-2.info/timeline/
"...Suddenly FDR and the American position became much harder in their dealing with Japan and when the US decided to blockade oil shipments to Japan, it was a 30 day ultimatum to the Japanese which required them to either surrender their sovereignty to the US or go to war."
FDR's move wasn't sudden, it was not a declaration of war, and, yes, in response to Japan's military aggression in Asia and vicious brutality toward the Chinese and Korean people -- recall the Rape of Nanking? -- he did use every tool short of war to stop them from furthering their plans for a 'Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere,' which was really just a misleading term for expanding the Japanese Empire through force of arms. FDR did not ask Japan to surrender their sovereignty, just to reduce their military conquests and control over China and Korea. Had you been president in that era, would you have just blithely ignored Japan as it murdered, raped and enslaved innocent Chinese and Koreans?
"The fascists had no business engaging in the imperialistic adventures they did, but neither did Churchill and Roosevelt in sitting on their asses in the hopes that Germany or Japan would knock off the Soviets (whose ferocious and more accurtately named "war against fascism" was what really beat the German war machine)."
I don't think either FDR or Churchill 'sat on their asses' hoping Germany or Japan would knock off the USSR. Militarily, it would have been a disaster for the Allies, and we likely would have lost the war. The Soviet Union by itself could not have beaten the Germans in the early years of the war -- they were saved by the Russian winter, which gave them time to build up their forces and receive aid from the US, and Hitler's intractable stupidity in attacking when he should have retreated, and insufficiently supplying his troops for cold weather warfare. If the US had not been engaging the Japanese in the Pacific, and combined US and British forces fighting the Nazis in North Africa and southern Italy, Japanese troops would have been available to invade Russia from the east, while Germany and Italian forces would have been free to invade from the west. In such a two-front war, I don't think the Soviet military of 1940-43 could have survived.
RSJ--
The war declaration against Germany after the invasion of Poland was meaningless because the BEF just sat in France anmd did nothing (the sitzkrieg).
The winter of 41-42 certainly did help the Soviets but their resistance at both Moscow and Stalingrad disproves your contention of their effectiveness in the 42-43 time period. Stalin had already begun moving Soviet armaments further east years before Barbarossa for the very reason of protecting their manufacturing from destruction.
As for your estimate of the German military in the time period of '36-'39 you might want to read the German General Staff's estimate of their ability to withstand a determined allied military response. They were mostly protesting Hitler's plans as being too ambitious too soon.
This was the essence of Churchill's criticism of both Baldwin's and Chamberlin's governments prior to his own assuming the priminstership. My criticism is not so much of Churchill asit is of Baldwin and Chamberlin who knew and could have sone more and simply sat on their hands and didn't do nearly as much as they could have. Ditto for FDR.
Poet
Poet January 4th, 2009 5:36 pm, on your first point, there is no disagreement on the BEF not doing much after Britain declared war on Germany Sept. 3rd; the problem is the motive for them not engaging. You claim it's because Chamberlain hoped the Nazis would annihilate the Soviets -- that would be a neat trick, since they were still allies then and, in fact, officially divided up Poland on Sept. 29, 1939. To reiterate: the BEF didn't engage Germany on the battlefield because British commanders realized they were woefully undermanned and underequipped compared to the modernized German forces. The fact that the British were later run off the beaches at Dunkirk supports this point. However, the RAF did mount attacks on the German Navy on Sept. 4, 1939.
Point 2: No, it doesn't disprove my contention that, should there have been no war in the Pacific to tie up Japan, and should there have been no attacks by British and American forces in North Africa and Italy during the 42-43 period, that would have freed up Axis troops and materiel to concentrate on defeating the Soviets. Prior to the US providing planes, tanks and manufacturing equipment, the output of Stalin's eastern factories was low, and Japan, without a war in the Pacific, could have easily overrun those plants.
Point 3: The German General Staff was right, and Hitler misused what he had. But that doesn't detract from the fact that in 1939, compared to the Allies, Germany had the most modern and efficient war machine on the planet, and had mastered the integrated use of mechanized units with air power, as in the infamous 'blitzkrieg' maneuver. The US and Britain were far behind in tank design and production -- even the Allies' staple US M4 Sherman tank was inferior throughout the war to the top German tanks -- and, early on, utilized tanks as infantry support rather than assault vehicles, as in WWI. The FW-190 and ME-109 were also superior to any fighter aircraft the US or British had in 1939. (The Supermarine Spitfire not yet available.)
Point 4: Which brings us back to the beginning. British PM Neville Chamberlain knew he had a weak army and air force compared to the Germans, and he couldn't withdraw British troops from all of the Empire's outposts to concentrate on Europe. Therefore, he had little choice but to sit on his hands and hope the Nazis didn't launch an all-out assault on his forces. The later tragic loss at Dunkirk proves this point -- the BEF couldn't hold under the German onslaught. In the US, FDR was running a reelection campaign on a platform that said he wouldn't send American boys to die overseas and, realistically, the small and poorly-equipped US ground and air forces weren't ready for a war with Germany in 1939 and, as has been noted, there was no public support for war in isolationist America. I think both Chamberlain and FDR were vamping for time to beef up their forces and their war production and knew very well they didn't have a chance of beating Germany in 1939-40.
Samski January 3rd, 2009 7:45 pm;"By declaring war upon the Axis after Pearl Harbor, the US had it's own interests and behind to preserve in shoring up the Allies in Europe."
Actually, Japan essentially declared war on the US first, in a 14-part coded message sent to the Japanese Embassy in Washington, the final parts of which were decoded and delivered to US Secy of State Cordell Hull after the Pearl Harbor attack. Germany and Italy declared war on us the next day, December 8, 1941. Congress merely ratified FDR's request for a war declaration -- purely a matter of formality, as all three Axis Powers were already in an official state of war with the United States.
"Germany and Italy declared war on us the next day, December 8, 1941"
And if Hitler hadn't done it, FDR would have been hard pressed to get the US in at that time. The people had little interest in becoming involved. It stiill amazes me why he did it. Forget the Axis pact, Hitler could care less about promises.
You may be right, Thomas More January 4th, 2009 1:34 pm, since we were then in an isolationist mindset that wanted nothing to do with Europe's wars -- there were plenty of WWI vets around then who bitterly remembered their war was supposed to be the 'War to End All Wars' -- but, nevertheless, Hitler and Mussolini declared war on us first. I have heard the opinion that it was to scare FDR away from openly supporting the British with US troops -- the Nazis allegedly thinking we were terrified of their modernized war machine and would not engage them on the battlefield -- but I don't know if that is backed by any documentation.
The British Empire was lost during the First World War. True it carried on in name only for the next thirty years, but it didn't recover from the expense of men, blood and treasure lost during '14-18. It never again had the influence after 1918 that it did before 1914.
Ya all should take a closer look at what the yanks of the period were saying about 'saving the british empire' with yank lives... They were (quite rightly) not in favour of that.
You didn't save our rears, thanks anyhow, but it was the twenty million ruskies who died fighting hitler's germany that saved the western world from its own folly.
All true, but without us....we'd all be speaking German. And thats the truth. England, France and Russia couldn't win by themselves in WW1 or WW2. Ask some of the boys that were fighting in 41 -43, they will tell you the truth.
You're quite wrong about ww1, Germany was a spent force by 1917. Sure they still had armies in the field, and a navy in port, but their chances of victory were slim. The usa did not field an army that was feared by the Germans, you captured less land, prisoners, guns and fought fewer battles than did the Canadians in the last year of that war.
Germany's last offensive in WWI brought about the collapse of its own armed forces.
As for WWII, the USSR could and did defeat Germany on its own. Yes, they had some help from the allies, but we were more than willing to let them pay for the separate peace they signed with Germany back in 1917. What the us forces did in Europe was to prevent western Europe from being occupied by the Soviets. In 1944-45 more than 75% of Germany's armed forces were fighting the Soviets, not the Western Allies. That is proved by the records of the German army. The Nazi's weren't Supermen, neither were your countrymen 'superdupermen'. (grin)
As for speaking German had the impossible happened... Do you really believe that they'd have been able to suppress the language of the countries they occupied? And if so why do the people in the Baltic states still speak Lituanian, Estonian and the Latvian languages after 60 years of effort by the USSR to stamp out those languages? Why do the French in Quebec still speak French 200+ years after they were conquered by the English?
What's in names indeed, sure languages change over time, but if the people who speak those languages don't want to let them die; they don't die.
Alcyon, you might want to extend your vision a little further and acknowledge the contribution of the millions of Russian people who died wearing Hitler down and who ultimately made the Allied victory possible.
Were it not for the sacrifices of European countries and others long before America got involved the world could be a whole different place. Don't forget that a German bomber came within 12 miles of New York (in 1944 I think) and that V2 rockets had no opposition beyond destruction of their launch sites, which was difficult.
Their range was continuously extending and accuracy improving plus Germany was not far behind on atomic research. Join the dots and you may find that with these dangers on the drawing board there was a less altruistic reason for America joining in the fray.
Let's not also forget that there is credibility in the possibility of preventing WWII had a different foreign policy approach post WWI been followed. The complete and utter economic humiliation of Germany created a vacuum that allowed the rise of a Hitler. Idiots at the helm never learn from history. Beware of vacuums -look no further than the rise of the Taliban.
Sanctuary
Very, very good points. We may have furnished the tanks, planes and equipment, but it was Russian bodies in the uniforms that were dying.
Especially good point about WW1 leading to WW2.
Sanctuary, my list of WW-II participants was never meant to be exhaustive, but you're right - it would have looked more complete with the inclusion of Russia. I guess I am as much a victim of propaganda as I am cautioning others against :) Also, I never implied that America joining the war was for any altruistic reason - I just wanted to point out it had enormous significance in the outcome of the war (just as Russia's role was, and Canada's, and Britain's colonies' - by supplying men and material), and, in comparison, I do not feel like giving as much credit to Churchill like so many people are trying to - especially as I learn more and more about that period.
You are right about vacuum - to some extent. Saddam Hussein's removal too created a vacuum. The reason I say 'to some extent' is because such 'vacuums' are created in the first place by external meddling. Without prior involvement of outside parties or wars, such situations do not assume as much significance.
Highintel: Can we do better?
Why not just call it "Made in USA" or "Joe Six-Pack" or "Baptists & Catholics for Israel" or just "Our Tax Dollars"? Plenty of catchy titles out there.
The Glue That Holds Chaos Together
Excellent comment! Well Stated!
I like that. Perhaps it could be called "Operation Trig" or "Sarah Palin?" Or, in honor of so many US backers, "Operation Christian Fundamentalist?" Or, to cut to the chase, "Operation Rapture?"
We can joke. But the slaughter is in full force at this very moment. And we here in the USA think we have troubles?
The Israeli military calls it Operation Cast Lead.
________________________________________
This label seems pretty straightforward to me-- it is a surprisingly frank tribute to the internal organs, particularly the hearts and brains, of the monsters who planned and authorized this latest rogue-state campaign of terrorism and ethnic cleansing.
I have only a vague memory of an article I read long ago discussing the formula for devising titles for "action"-movie blockbusters. I believe that a title like "Die Hard" was considered ideal-- something to do with using simple, monosyllabic active verbs and a lurid adjective or two to create a memorable and attractive phrase pulsing with High Melodrama.
The goal is to reach and attract a Target Demographic with a few dollars to burn on pop culture entertainment-- manifestly NOT the intelligensia or sophisticated and discerning consumers.
In Amerika, the practice has devolved to fit a dumbed-down constituency; thus, Amerikan military missions are named with unintentionally risible adolescent comic-book titles: Operation Flaming Sword of Justice; Operation Iron Freedom ...
Yes, I just made those two up. Actual testosterone-soaked names can be Googled readily enough.
During my pre-teen years, I enjoyed assembling plastic model kits; for some reason, I always preferred military aircraft to cars. One of the best parts of this activity was attaching authentic decals to the assembled planes, especially cockpit logos. The distinctive "Flying Tigers" nose art comes to mind. Airplane decoration, shoulder patches, uniform insignia seemed so... COOL!
Ever since war existed, an accompanying warrior culture provides an "esthetic" for decorating and festooning the warrior-- presumably an enemy's blood (like the blood of a hunted animal) is an obvious decorative pigment, perhaps the original meta-label for fighting to the death. Military museums house a staggeringly vast array of cultural artifacts celebrating war and violent combat. It's not a modern invention.
But for all of that-- as Joseph Heller showed in the incomparable classic "Catch-22"-- beneath all of the brass and ribbons and ceremony and glittering medals and Walt Disney cockpit art and fanciful names for military operations lies a Grim Reaper adorned only with a scythe. And all of the romantic pomp and glitter is a way to rationalize and sublimate the vicious barbarism that is violent armed aggression.
I find Fisk's rumination on the "branding" of state-generated armed violence quite apt.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Obedient Servant January 3rd, 2009 6:06 pm, good ideas -- and some nostalgia for this gray beard -- in your analysis, and I'd just like to add a little to this:
But for all of that-- as Joseph Heller showed in the incomparable classic "Catch-22"-- beneath all of the brass and ribbons and ceremony and glittering medals and Walt Disney cockpit art and fanciful names for military operations lies a Grim Reaper adorned only with a scythe. And all of the romantic pomp and glitter is a way to rationalize and sublimate the vicious barbarism that is violent armed aggression."
As well as the Grim Reaper, there is also the Holy Profit Motive of ultimate 'free market capitalist' Milo Minderbinder who shortchanged his squadron on safety equipment, sold shabby goods to his customers, and was willing to bomb his own camp to satisfy the requirements of his lucrative business deals with the Nazis. At the time Heller's book came out in 1961 it was considered absurdist black comedy but, as the true history of WWII, Vietnam and our involvement in Iraq gradually come to light, we see that Milo's schemes were often not far from the truth.
The Glue That Holds Chaos Together
Well we have seen plenty of references to the "Crusades" from GWB's administration, and they always seem to change the names after they have successfully offended someone.
I don't think that our leaders are cowards who believe that the Ottoman Empire may rise again, but I do think that they are cowards who strive to appeal to cowards who are afraid of a rise of The Ottoman Empire....or socialists, or communists, or Armaggedon, or whatever the fear du jour happens to be.
I've read that when an early American operation in Vietnam was code-named "MASHER", someone objected because the name seemed too cruel; so the operation was re-christened "WHITE WING", and in the history books, it's called "MASHER/WHITE WING".
The US Army Air Force effort in late World War 2 to drop mines in the sea lanes around Japan in order to sink merchant shipping was called "Operation Starvation".
Of course there is a bit of a difference between the empire of Japan - which was able to mount an effective defence/offence against it's adversaries and the ability of the Gaza strip to do the same. Kinda like the difference between a modern battle tank and a sling.
"Operation Starvation"
__________________________
Now, THERE'S a surprisingly understated monicker without a bit of swagger or euphemism about it-- it's as clean and polished and unornamental as a bleached bone. The exception that tests the rule!
· Yr Obd't Servant
There are many names from history that could give the Israeli operations a colorful flavor:
Crow Creek, Myall Creek, Haun's Mill, Gippsland, Mountain Meadows, Lawrence, Sand Creek. Batak, Wounded Knee, Moro Crater, Amitsar, Croke Park, Qissa Khwani bazaar, Nanking, Katyn, Babi Yar, Laha, Lidice, Marzabotto, Oradour-sur-giane, Malmedy, Lari, Sharpeville, Novocherkassk, My Lai, Tiatelolco, Kent State, Lod Airport, Munich, Kingsmill, Dujail, Sabra and Shatila (already used), Accomarca, Tiananmen Square, Santa Cruz, Vukovar, Khojaly, Maraghar and Srebrenica.
Since the Zionists have such an acute sense of their own history, perhaps they could broaden their perspective and the IDF could program their Operation naming computer with these illustrious historical references. It might be enough to last them for a year or two.
Nothing exists.
All military operations are Operation Cowardice/Lunacy.
Pan
The 7th Cavalry at Sandcreek,their will be medals
The greatest mind-fuck name is changing the
Department of WAR to
Department of 'Defence' after WWII
600 BILLION dollars a year now(for the U.S.)...
Fisk is a respected left bourgeois writer I would say. He has risked his life, and almost lost it in Afghanistan, reporting truthfully on the situation in the middle east in particular.
Churchill was a bastard. He was a representative of British imperialism in Ireland and elsewhere. As for the second world war it is the Russians that we owe thanks to in many ways, just check the body count. US capitalism emerged from the first world the world's largest creditor and profited hugely from the second. It also never had it's infrastructure destroyed as did its allies and enemies.
One of the reasons there is such a macho kick ass attitude is that people have not had to crawl from smoldering buildings that were once home carrying their dead kids and Hollywood and the media portray war a s a game. My father was a prisoner in japan for the entire war, he didn't revere John Wayne and had more respect for enemy soldiers who actually sacrificed something. He wasn't right on everything at all, he admired Churchill but that was really based on the defense of the Island as opposed to knowing anything about his racist and chauvanist history with British colonialism.
http://weknowwhatsup.blogspot.com