‘TO INCLUDE’ DOESN’T


in our archive shows that, despite editors’ best efforts, this odd affectation—for it is that, an affectation—breaks through.


Nor do I have any doubts that I will hear from readers pointing out inaccuracies here. I’m always up for learning some- thing—especially why anyone would think this usage is justifiable.


WRITE PATH


As insistent as it is on getting the details right when discussing a weapon system or program, DOD is less careful in observing differences in meaning and using words correctly. (Image by USAASC)


Wait. What?


When I first read that sentence, it made my head spin like Linda Blair’s in “Te Exorcist.”


No one would mistake policy for art. It seeks to pack in a lot and prescribes what should be done. Period. In this case, however, it also comes very close—thanks to the swap of to include for including—to being meaningless, which is one of the last things that you want policy to be.


“A bridge action describes a non- competitive action requiring a justifica- tion” is clear enough, if you happen to know anything about DOD contracting. But then it goes totally off the rails.


Te common phrase is “including but not limited to,” of which only “including” has any real meaning. (Inherent in the meaning of including is the idea that not everything has been or would be listed.)


168 Army AL&T Magazine Summer 2020


Where the sentence descends into mean- inglessness is the swap of to include for including. Meaning disappears.


What the policy’s authors wanted to say, in no uncertain terms, is that a bridge action makes it necessary to file a whole bunch of justifying documents, includ- ing things required by statute, to ensure that the organization isn’t throwing money away. But it doesn’t say that.


Remember, the infinitive helps out a verb, clarifying what the verb is all about. In this case, we have “describes” as the verb. So “a bridge action describes to include, but not limited to, a formal justification …”


I don’t mean to cast aspersions here except at the locution. It just makes no sense— both literally and figuratively.


CONCLUSION I have no illusions that anyone is going to change the way they talk. Te evidence


Still, the language that DOD uses—as exemplified by the Joint Chiefs’ diction- ary—could use some serious critical thinking. And it’s needed it for a long time. People say things all the time with- out really knowing what they mean. Tat’s entirely understandable because acquisition is so complex. But to further complexify it with affected language helps no one.


DOD can be really particular, even picky, about definitions. Take, for example, the recent mandate that, in DOD terminol- ogy, face mask and face covering are two different things, the former being exclu- sively medical grade. Just in case anyone is confused.


Te utter wrongness of the to include usage also stands out sore-thumbishly in other ways. For an organization that cares about operational security, it might just be a bad idea to habituate people to talking in a way that nobody else does. Te DOD person is easy to spot as soon as they open their mouth.


To harass the author about any of his usage, contact stephen.e.stark.civ@mail.mil.


—STEVE STARK


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172