We would be remiss if we omitted one of the more voluble users of jargon and bureaucratese these days: the United States military.
The other day, one of the U.S. Army's spokesmen described a battlefield in Syria where an ISIS convoy got stuck, and the coalition against it cleaned up:
"It has been quite lucrative for the coalition because of all the assets that ISIS has put toward it. They have exposed themselves as part of this event, and we were able to capitalize on it. It presented an opportunity for the coalition to strike and remove several ISIS fighters and resources from the battlefield."
Removing resources from the battlefield? Somehow we don't hear Patton saying that. Excuse us, we don't hear Patton "using that phraseology."
Lucrative? Is somebody making money on this deal? ISIS is losing assets? Like its 401(k)? Capitalize on this event? Like a concert promoter?
We sorta liked it when we heard an officer in the First Gulf War explain a battlefield full of Iraqi tanks as "a target-rich environment." That combined hubris and optimism you like in an American officer.
But somebody send these modern spokesmen to an English class. Or maybe just to drill sergeant school, where nobody is ever misunderstood.
Editorial on 09/08/2017