Why We Need to Stop Using War Metaphors
By Rob Huckins
Most human beings will never see war. An even greater number will likely never participate as a combatant in war. These are good things, realities we should celebrate and appreciate. But you wouldn’t know it from the language coming out of many parts of our society these days. Increasingly, many of the metaphors for pursuing success in both private and public sector endeavors are drawn from war.
At a leadership conference recently, this point became painfully clear in a way which had very little to do with the presenter that morning. As we sat with our comfortable chairs and good coffee, relaxed and likely at our greatest level of attentiveness that day, we listened to an honorable, earnest and thoroughly engaging man discuss the finer points of his incredible service as a Navy SEAL and what it should teach all of us about leadership. I enjoyed nearly everything this man said and he earned my respect from the time he took the stage through his closing remarks. While I was completely engaged in what he had to say, I’m not sure it had any larger context in my own life. In most all cases, trying to connect war experience, no matter how heroic or well honed, to anything other than war is futile.
It was also symbolic of a trend rearing its head in a subtle yet persistent way over the last decade and a half. Private industry, in its pursuit of better methods of operation, especially in the area of leadership, seems bent on comparing its performance to war-related vernacular. “Going to war” is often used to describe various actions which relate to getting a product ahead in its market or having people in a company close a big deal or whatever it is that makes money or long lasting impact. Other phrases like “in the trenches” for working hard and describing a particularly great colleague as someone you would “love to have in a foxhole next to you” are rampant in today’s business world.
Worship of war-related leadership strategies (thanks, Sun-tzu) is at an all time high, especially in trying to use the lessons of war from (insert important military personality here) to run your business or public institution. “Take a bullet” is another popular phrase for defending a colleague or company reputation. Leaders are compared to “field generals” and “warriors” as they navigate their “terrain” and “battlefields” to dominate or “win the war”.
This isn’t limited to business. Sports have increasingly made inroads using this terminology when comparing the playing of a game or sport to that of war. It goes beyond organizations, as some of the most high profile athletes in recent years often speak in military terms on a regular basis (insert all the aforementioned terms here). Former National Basketball Association star Kevin Garnett was famous in Minnesota and Boston for using military language to describe playing high-level basketball. Kobe Bryant spoke of his obsession with watching war-related films and reading books about military exploits and comparing their use for his approach to playing basketball. Tiger Woods actually trained with military special forces ranks on a semi-regular basis for a period of time in his career, eventually becoming adept at many high level military skills but earning the quiet scoffing of those military personnel he trained with for not really doing it the way they had to in order to be successful.
College coaches are perhaps the worst offenders of this practice. Former basketball coach and current Trump devotee Bobby Knight consistently used military language in describing greatness and success on the basketball court. He was even nicknamed “The General”. His first coaching job was at Army but he wasn’t in the military. But you wouldn’t have known it from his language. He is far from the only practitioner of this routine, as football coaches regularly use military metaphors for their “attack” on opposing formations and the “war” being “fought” on the field. The use of war lingo in areas not involving war is inappropriate at the bare minimum, and at its worst, diminishing to those who are combat veterans.
War is war. That’s it. Combat is combat and most who survive it pay a dear price, physically, emotionally or both. We have fought dozens of wars in our national history, the two most recent engagements (Iraq & Afghanistan) lasting the longest of any of them. No matter the conditions, reasons or results of these wars, the core element of fighting them never really changed that much. When one reads letters (or emails today) from soldiers in war zones to friends and loved ones throughout history, the sentiment and basic spirit conveyed is almost identical. While language and trends in speech change, as do the wars themselves, the relative experience does not. Historians know this. So do psychologists. And certainly the military realizes this, too.
There are cemeteries and memorials across the country paying respect to those killed in these wars while other means are used to honor the millions of people who made it home. Those serving in combat stack up poorly in nearly every major category used to measure personal wellness compared to the rest of the population. Depression. Drug abuse. Alcoholism. Assault. Divorce. Homelessness. Worst of all, the suicide rate among American veterans continues to climb at an alarming, nearly unfathomable rate. These facts are more than sobering. They are tragic.
Business can without question be very serious, at times so much that the outcomes of certain dealings can have very real consequences for the lives of many, many people. But it isn’t war, and should not be confused as such. Sports are best used as a distraction from real life, something to enjoy recreationally unless one is connected directly to a franchise or actually plays for one. But even for those few, no war is involved. To suggest otherwise is absurd and, in the end, insulting to those who have experienced war.
In many ways, the National Football League may be the worst offender in all this with the use of war imagery. Not only does the cultural language and terminology of the league clearly reflect a military mentality but its very operational practice uses honoring the military as an actual financial benefit. In 2015, an investigation revealed the Department of Defense paid multiple NFL teams over $50 million to use halftime events as venues for various promotional activities to “honor the troops”. This practice, now banned, was not exclusive just to the NFL but to other sports and events, too (NASCAR and dog sled races to name two). But the NFL was exceedingly ahead of those other organizations in terms of money received from the DOD.
This reflects the cultural, perhaps even psychological, need of many Americans to connect somehow to the war experience even though nobody is asking them to, the least of whom our veterans. If you talk to veterans, they reflect many opinions and backgrounds, including their motivation to serve in the first place and what they think of their war experiences. Most don’t want extravagant ceremonies or constant free cups of coffee or meals; most simply want military service to be acknowledged and supported (not just theirs but everyone’s) by our population and more importantly, the chance to start a new, post-military life knowing their service mattered. Seems fair enough.
American culture loves its wars and those who fight them, but not in the way that matters most. To hear Woods brag about how “tough” he was during certain aspects of Navy SEAL training stateside is ridiculous. His need to fulfill some military jones by dabbling in activities that real Navy SEALs use to survive and succeed in their missions is insulting. When Garnett used to pound his chest and talk constantly of “going to war” before basketball games, it sounded foolish, an adolescent trying to pump everyone up using words he didn’t understand. I have no problem with Bryant (or anyone) reading about or watching military exploits on film for inspiration and motivation. There are, without a doubt, lessons to be learned. But to assimilate these experiences as some means of comparative analysis for his sport is demeaning to those who served.
It’s probably safe to assume none of this is intended to offend. For some it may be an awkward attempt to pay respect to those who have fought in our wars. In the end, many veterans probably don’t even care. The thought of them being offended by the actions of a pro athlete or business person seems a bit beneath their pay grade. They have far more serious things to worry about in their lives. But it matters.
In order for us to better help our returning veterans, we have to try to understand them by meeting them where they are, not where we want them to be. Their experience is not about us. But they need our help. We need to stop asking for cool war stories and instead try to learn about what they experienced and what it means to them now. We need to read on our own to understand, not to glorify. We need to stop using their experiences to somehow boost your own lives, as if there was some comparison between the two. There isn’t. As General Sherman once said, war is hell. Anyone who hasn’t experienced it on their own should be grateful and respectful enough to keep it in its proper place, one reserved for those who went through it in real life.
