Episode 70: Laundering Imperial Violence Through Anodyne Foreign Policy-Speak (Part I)
b'
Barack Obama unleashes "kinetic strikes\\u201d on Libya, Hillary Clinton lobbies for "limited military coercion" in Syria, Congress passes \\u201crobust sanctions\\u201d on Iran, and Trump gives \\u201cUS generals more room to run\\u201d as he \\u201cramps up\\u201d \\u201cpressure\\u201d on ISIS. The Center for American Progress calls for a \\u201cno fly zone\\u201d to \\u201cprotect civilians.\\u201d It\\u2019s important the US \\u201cengage\\u201d in the Middle East as it \\u201creasserts itself\\u201d on \\u201cthe world stage,\\u201d and backs up \\u201cdiplomacy\\u201d with \\u201cmilitary muscle.\\u201d While Russia "expands" its naval and nuclear capacity the US merely \\u201cmodernizes\\u201d its fleet or stockpile. \\u201cAll options are on the table\\u201d when discussing Venezuela and Iran.
\\xa0
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\\u2019s really being called for.
In this two-part episode, we examine what\\u2019s being said, what\\u2019s being left out when we use \\u201cforeign policy-speak,\\u201d 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.
\\xa0
Our guest is FAIR\'s Janine Jackson.
\\xa0
'