A better Army sentence

Reading Army writing sometimes feels like Clausewitz’s description of war—dreadful suffering in a psychological fog that obscures clear insights. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Army writers can cut through the fog by writing better sentences.

Writing a good sentence is a matter of making good choices. Sentences communicate ideas. But the same idea can be expressed in countless ways. For example:

The staff planned the training.

A meeting was held by the staff to conduct planning and synchronization in support of the forthcoming training operation.

One idea—two sentences—both grammatically correct. Yet, the first sentence is clearer and more efficient because its author chose simple words and arranged them in a short, direct sentence.

How can Army writers achieve similar clarity and efficiency? Let’s find out by rewriting a sentence from FM 3-0, Operations:

Systems warfare is the identification and isolation or destruction of critical subsystems or components to degrade or destroy an opponent’s overall system.

We can improve this sentence by making different choices: reanimating zombie nouns, cutting clutter, and emphasizing the key idea.

Zombie nouns

We’ll begin by reanimating zombie nouns. Formally called nominalizations, zombie nouns earn their moniker by cannibalizing lively words—usually verbs—and replacing them with dead, abstract nouns. The zombie nouns in our sentence—identification, isolation, and destruction—cannibalize the verbs identify, isolate, and destroy. Let’s reanimate these zombies by restoring them to verbs:

Systems warfare is identifying and isolating or destroying critical subsystems or components to degrade or destroy an opponent’s overall system.

The revised sentence is shorter, more active, and less abstract.

Cut the clutter

Next, we’ll cut clutter by removing words that serve no purpose. We must, as William Zinsser says, “strip every sentence to its cleanest components.” First, since isolating or destroying something requires identifying it first, identifying is redundant. Second, it’s reasonable to assume that the target of systems warfare is an opponent. Third, overall is redundant. Cutting all three gives us:

Systems warfare is isolating or destroying critical subsystems or components to degrade or destroy a system.

Another way to cut clutter is simplifying. Our sentence includes three pairs of words with similar meanings. We can cut the weaker word or replace both with a simpler alternative. First, let’s call subsystems or components simply parts. Next, let’s streamline the four remaining verbs—isolating or destroying, and degrade or destroy. Since these words have both doctrine and dictionary definitions, replacing them (or not) depends on context. For now, let’s substitute attack and defeat. We’ll return to this choice in a moment.

The decluttered sentence is now half the original’s length and much easier to read:

Systems warfare is attacking critical parts to defeat a system.

Emphasize the key idea

Finally, we’ll emphasize the key idea. The original sentence and our rewritten version bury the key idea—attacking the critical parts. Although combatants can annihilate defeat a system by annihilating it, systems warfare achieves this goal more efficiently by focusing on the critical parts. Moving this idea from the middle of the sentence to the end emphasizes the main point and makes the sentence more energetic:

Systems warfare is defeating a system by attacking its critical parts.

After reanimating zombie nouns, cutting clutter, and emphasizing the key idea, we have a lean, sharp sentence. The verbs defeat and attack work well together to emphasize the sentence’s logic. Moreover, the new ending, attacking its critical parts, creates an aggressive tone that complements the sentence’s substance, whereas the original wording—isolation or destruction of critical subsystems or components—makes systems warfare sound like an academic lab exercise.

Now that we have a short, direct structure, we can restore the doctrine terms if necessary:

Systems warfare is degrading or destroying a system by isolating or destroying its critical parts.

Another choice:

Systems warfare is defeating a system by isolating or attacking its critical parts.

Neither are as crisp as the earlier version, but both improve on the original:

Systems warfare is the identification and isolation or destruction of critical subsystems or components to degrade or destroy an opponent’s overall system.

Better sentences

This example shows how good sentences come from good choices. Choosing well requires rewriting—revisiting your choices, again and again, until the sentence expresses its idea clearly. If rewriting seems like a lot of work, that’s because it is. Effortless, efficient reading comes from purposeful, painstaking rewriting.

Write better sentences by making good choices. Your readers will thank you.

Trent J. Lythgoe, PhD is an associate professor of military leadership at the US Army Command and General Staff College and the Major General Fox Conner Chair of Leadership Studies. Dr. Lythgoe is the project editor of Professional Writing: The Command and General Staff College Writing Guide.