Larson (2005) describes an argument that the use of aggressive or militaristic language is not an effective way to combat invasive species.  Larson (2005) argues that the militaristic writing styles encourages the reader to want to get involved with the effort to slow the spread of invasive species.  However, this usually leaves the reader misinformed or entirely uniformed about the actual situation, which can lead to rash, ineffective, and or harmful, actions being made.

In my own blog posts I have used militaristic language.  When describing the issue of the water hyacinth on Lake Victoria  I used lines such as, “the water hyacinth has been extremely destructive to both the species of Lake Victoria and the humans who depend upon the lake for food and water,” and later on, describing which scientific study I believe is more correct, I continue to use militaristic language, “the weevil is now the dominant force driving down the water hyacinth population.  Williams et al (2007) fails to give reasoning for why, even after the 1998 El Nino, the water hyacinth population has not experienced the same expansive growth rate that it did prior to El Nino.”  Specific key militaristic phrases in these quotes are, extremely destructive, dominant force driving down, and expansive growth rate.  I do agree with Larson (2005) that language such as the examples above does simplify the gravity of the situation by showing only part of the picture.  And for any argument to be successful, both sides of the issue must be represented.

Larson, B. M. H. 2005. The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495-500.