When Understanding Goes M.I.A: Lost in Metaphors, Idioms, and Analogies

Cleared hot? To do what?

On October 27, 2020, military theorist Olivia Garard published the poem “Every Brief Ever”, an ode to PowerPoint briefing styles ubiquitous in the military and Department of Defense. The poem is rife with cliches and catchphrases that speak to the devious deception of such briefings. Most of us can remember briefings that left us befuddled by overused jargon and mixed metaphors. Often by the end, the only clear thing is that the brief was a waste of time.

Her poem resonated with me. Who among us has not rolled their eyes as a Colonel or Command Sergeant Major utters the phrase “Let me caveat that,” or “find the bellybutton for this” or when a junior leader speaks in terms of “getting the ball to the goal line”? I offer that as national security professionals, we should be gravely concerned about our abuse of language. Ultimately, lives and mission success are at stake.

When commanders, staffers, and instructors speak in shallow phrases without data, evidence, or thought, the audience gets lost in trying to understand the point. In front of senior leaders, you will not only lose understanding, you will lose their trust. Your attempt at shared understanding has gone M.I.A.: lost in metaphors, idioms, and analogies.

What are Metaphors, Idioms, and Analogies?

The overuse of literary devices is not new. Neither is military officers ranting about it. Argus J. Tressider wrote “On Goobledygook” for the April 1974 edition of Military Review, as well as a tirade against imprecise doctrinal terms for the December 1972 edition. An article in the 1937 edition of The Infantry Journal Reader asks officers to consider whether military jargon “isn’t in several ways a barrier to understanding and a hindrance to national defense.”¹ The authors certainly have a point. If we cannot understand one another in peacetime, lives will certainly be lost through delays in understanding during war. 

Metaphors are “figures of speech in which a word or phrase denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them.” Idioms are “expression[s] in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself either in having a meaning that cannot be derived from the conjoined meanings of its elements (such as “up in the air” for "undecided") or in its grammatically atypical use of words (such as give way).” Idioms vary by region and culture. “That dog don’t hunt” is a common idiom in the southern United States. Analogies denote inference, similarity, and likeness; “a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect.” Most readers would be familiar with the art of warfare being made analogous to chess.

The Hazards of Misunderstanding

My personal lesson on the dangers of idioms came seven years ago when I worked at U.S. Embassy Beirut, Lebanon. After a Country Team meeting, I briefed my commander on the outcomes and decisions. I remember the disdain on his face when I said the words “cleared hot.” With a raised eyebrow he interrupted me and said “Cleared hot? To do what?” As I stammered over my words he narrowed his gaze and said, “Did you mean to say that we were approved to continue a partnership with this particular unit?” “Yes Sir,” I responded. In an immediate verbal counseling, he reminded me that specificity mattered and that jargon had little value in professional conversation. He asked me what our State Department colleagues would think if I used the “cleared hot” idiom in a meeting. He emphatically stated the phrase “cleared hot” was anything but clear. It made me—and by association, him—seem ignorant to my colleagues.

Over the course of the year, the military and State Department staff mentored and taught me to speak in clear, direct, meaningful terms. Metaphors and analogies were to be used sparingly, idioms not at all, and acronyms were standardized around offices and directorates. The result was evident in the high level of trust placed in us by our theater special operations command headquarters and more importantly, the U.S. Ambassador.

Metaphors may provide visualization tools for your audience, but they can be dangerous for theorists, planners, and policymakers. War is not a football game and general officer staffs are not akin to football coaches, despite what Army Training Publications 5-0.2-1 Staff Reference Guide says. Nor is strategy synonymous with chess. Planners cannot create refined and detailed plans from describing an operational phase as a “knife fight.”

Idioms will derail presentations as the senior leaders in the room attempt to understand your point. Furthermore, senior leaders who use such jargon cause turmoil for their subordinates. When a Brigade Commander says “We are playing smash-mouth football and the ball is on the five-yard line,” the staff must now turn that expression into something tangible for the commanders. It is far better to say, “The enemy is near culmination, so we are going to reinforce the main effort to accomplish this critical mission task.” Your staff can turn the latter into a detailed plan.

Senior leaders must also exercise caution when in joint, interagency, or liaison environments. Overuse of idioms makes us look silly, foolish, or at worst incompetent. The soldiers and officers of today grew up hearing the idiom “turning the corner” during Congressional testimony on Iraq or Afghanistan. Our impressions of that idiom are not kind. During planning conferences, I’ve heard learned and senior people talk about “being out of Schlitz,” when they mean hitting their culmination point, or “going the distance” when they mean maximizing their operational reach.

Analogies can muddle communication between the speaker and the receiver. If you find yourself saying “in other words” or “what I mean to say” after using a supposedly clever analogy, you must acknowledge your words were befuddled and confused. Explaining analogies after long diatribes also breeds resentment. Clear communication protects your time and the time of your people. Unclear communication invites friction, and friction costs lives.

Change Your Approach

That’s not to say that literary devices are useless; they just need to have a specific purpose. We use figures of speech for a variety of reasons. One reason is that our brains get tired and thus crave simple, digestible information. Idioms can reinforce common bonds and strengthen team dynamics. Each profession has its own unique language whether it be sports teams, the military, or Hollywood. The key is to know when to use the language of your trade’s jargon, and when to speak plainly. In general, figures of speech should be used for three reasons: resonance, fostering relationships, and comprehension.

Metaphors should illustrate a salient point that you want your audience to remember long after you are done talking. Think of the common metaphor for the Army’s noncommissioned officer corps: the backbone of the Army. The phrase is compelling; our NCOs are not like the spine of a human, they are the spine, holding the Army upright and stalwart.

Your goal with metaphor is resonance. LTG Milford Beagle implores graduates of the Command and General Staff College and School of Advanced Military Studies to be planters. “Plant seeds and grow trees for which you won’t gain the benefit of the shade.” It is the metaphorical transference that resonates: the ownership and agency of being a planter in the military, empowered to continue stewardship of the profession through soldier and leader development. Furthermore, LTG Beagle knows his audience understands the metaphor and its message. It is often what he closes with, as his speech or presentation culminates with a final lesson: as field grade officers we are expected to mentor and cultivate those coming behind us.²

Use idioms sparingly, but strive to use them effectively. Expecting division staffers to turn your guidance of “take it to the hoop” or “put the ball in the end-zone” into detailed planning is foolish. Avoid idioms in planning documents and presentations, especially with our interagency partners. However, one area where idioms can be useful is in relationship building. When used for levity and rapport, sharing professional idioms is a form of trust, acceptance, and inclusion. Find where idioms intersect at cultural crossroads and commonalities.

As a method of clarifying complex concepts, analogies actually work quite well. Analogies denote similarity and likeness. Our brains often rely on comparison, especially when they are tired or trying to make sense of something. Retired Colonel John Antal provides an example of useful analogy when he makes human-machining with man-portable drones analogous to the archer and his arrows. Through his analogy, readers understand concepts of top-attack, range, the needs of the modern-day archer, or can think of creative ways to shield systems from the modern-day arrow. The caveat is not to take analogies too far.

Given there is one in the title, it is also appropriate to discuss acronyms. Acronyms are useful when they are understood by everyone within the organization. This matters even more in a joint, coalition, or interagency environment. For example, POL could mean petroleum, oil, and lubricants to mechanized units, but in other services POL means pattern-of-life, a component of intelligence surveillance. Needless friction can be avoided by publishing terms of reference prior to planning exercises or presentations. Pro-tip: if it doesn’t save time or space, don’t say the acronym.

Conclusion

Shared understanding requires clear communication between senders and receivers, between units and commanders, and across units within a command. You may find it difficult to remove catchphrases and jargon from your lexicon; that is to be expected. Soldiers, especially Army officers, are socialized to speak in sayings, mantras, and soundbites. The goal is not perfect communication but more mature communication. This maturity comes through knowing your audience, choosing the right words to communicate your message, and most of all, practice and mentorship. Say what you mean and mean what you say. To harken back to 1937: “For upon the clarity of military language may depend the success of an army and the existence of a nation.”³

Marshall McGurk is a Special Forces Officer assigned to United States Army Special Operations Command, Fort Liberty, North Carolina. He is a graduate of the School of Advanced Military Studies.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, the U.S. Army, or the Department of Defense.

1. The title of the article is “War in Plain Language” by G.V. and is found on page 185 of the journal. The next article on page 197, “ANIMADVERSIONS ANENT ANFRACTUOSE AND OBFUSCATORY LOCUTIONS” is perhaps the most applicable to today.

2. Two presentations from LTG Beagle at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas in October 2022 and May 2023 as heard by the author.

3. From “Military English” by Captain X, page 199 of The Infantry Journal Reader.