As news headlines flood with recountings of battles fought across the world, the term “collateral damage” seems to keep popping up—specifically in reference to lives lost in war. The word “war” itself can be a battlefield, as words often conceal the grim realities they attempt to describe. Among the most insidious phrases is “collateral damage,” a term used to justify the impact of civilian casualties during armed conflicts. However, a deep dive into the power of language, the negative implications of this terminology, and the potential alternatives can provide a comprehensive view on the dehumanizing nature of this phrase.
As a powerful tool that shapes perceptions, influences attitudes, and defines our understanding of the world, language becomes uniquely crucial as it attempts to balance objective military necessity with a more subjective human empathy. “Collateral damage” is a prime example of linguistic manipulation. Many press releases hide behind veils of authenticity in their reporting and deeper searches for the “truth” to justify this cruel wording, but it essentially does the opposite of exposing the public to the facts. Wrapping up layered and nuanced topics such as innocent people dying as “collateral damage” simply shoves the issue under the rug. People disassociate from the injustices of war more quickly and far more easily when they forget who is actually being affected—the gravity of the situation is severely downplayed, leading to the desensitization of the public’s perception of war.
Behind the impersonal facade of “collateral damage” lie real people with unique stories, dreams, and aspirations. This euphemism erases the individuality of these war victims, reducing them to a general term. It perpetuates a narrative that prioritizes military objectives over the inherent value of human life, not only camouflaging the emotional toll of war but also raising moral concerns. By reducing the suffering of innocent civilians to a phrase, it implies an acceptance of their deaths as a necessary (but unfortunate) consequence of war, normalizing the notion that some lives are expendable in the pursuit of military objectives.
“Collateral damage” exonerates militaries of responsibility and accountability for lives lost. By framing civilian casualties as an unintentional, unavoidable side effect of warfare, it becomes easier for those in power to deflect blame. The term shields decision-makers from scrutiny and masks the potential violations of international humanitarian law, maintaining a cycle that undermines justice.
Adopting alternative, more transparent language can help shift the narrative surrounding civilian casualties in war. Instead of hiding behind euphemisms, acknowledging the tragic reality and using terms like “civilian casualties” emphasizes the human toll of conflict and fosters a sense of responsibility. By engaging in open discourse about the consequences of warfare, society is better equipped to question the necessity and ethics of military actions. We must critically examine the words we use to describe the realities of war and strive for a discourse that prioritizes the value of every individual life, nurturing empathy, accountability, and a collective commitment to peace.
