Does Language Make Policy?

Having just been involved in a discussion where the meaning of the word "cautious" was the point of misunderstanding, I've become re-sensitized to how words matter.

I'm thinking of starting an irregular (or is it occasional) posting on the topic.

Here's the first installment.

Much of the news in the US these days is taken up with the "war" in Iraq. This makes military matters more likely to be reported on than in peace times.

The installation of a new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was the hook for this story:
Meeting Today’s Military Demands, With an Eye on Tomorrow’s

The focus is on planning for what the military should look like after the war is over, since many years are needed to bring plans to completion. This is all very routine. However this is where I find language important:

That is why it is no less a priority for the new chairman, and his civilian bosses, to plan how the military pivots out of Iraq to face the next enemy, whoever and wherever that is.
...
But the military cannot ignore traditional threats posed by nations that are not enemies but may, over time, challenge American interests through coercion, if not aggression. China tops that list.

There is an assumption in the first paragraph that there will be a next enemy. In other words, US policy is already being designed to continue military confrontation rather than work toward a world where differences are handled by negotiation.

In the second paragraph there is the well-worn phrase "American interests". This is a code word for the US's ability to determine the conditions of international trade so that raw materials and finished goods are supplied on terms favorable to America. The assumption is, once again, that the normal workings of the marketplace won't be sufficient to ensure the American lifestyle.

What you see in these two casual remarks is the entire framing of the US policy for the next 20-30 years. There is no debate over whether this is the right direction to pursue. It is also why I constantly claim that there are no substantial differences between the two parties when it comes to militarism and capitalism.

It is also a sign that the US government is still set in a 20th Century industrial mindset and that it has yet to give any thought to looming resource shortages or climate change. This isn't a good sign.

PS. For the curious I objected to an economics paper which developed a model to explain why the Federal Reserve Bank acted "cautiously" in the 1970's. I said that caution is a human characteristic and using it metaphorically or anthropomorphically was editorializing. My point wasn't understood. Here's the thread, if anyone is interested in the ins and outs of the Federal Reserve's economic modelling.
The Implications of Behavioral Research for the Phillips Curve