While the names of United States military operations usually follow a certain tradition, “Epic Rage” represents a departure from this practice.
The title of the ongoing US attacks on Iran, “Epic Rage,” is “unusual because of its severity,” Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Radio Free Europe (RFE/RL). “Operations usually have names that appeal to a wide audience, like Iraqi Freedom,” he added, referring to the official name of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The former US Navy colonel says the name for the war on Iran was likely selected from a list of options drawn up by military staff, “based on their perception of what [US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth] wanted to convey.”
During the planning of previous US military operations, insiders have described lists of “three pages long” of possible two-word names, from which the leadership would choose one. James Dawes, author of a book on the language of war, agrees that the name represents a departure from previous American codes, which, he says, “often emphasized moral purpose and discipline,” such as “Enduring Freedom,” the name of the 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan. “Epic Rage” also differs from previous names of this administration that evoked violent action, such as Midnight Hammer or Southern Spear,” he says. In contrast, “Epic Rage names an extreme emotional state, an anger that resists control,” Dawes told REL.
In a 1995 study by Gregory Sieminski, a US Army officer, code names for military operations are described as “the first bullet, or the bullet that is fired” in a conflict, due to their impact on public opinion.
Operation names, Sieminski wrote, have several potential audiences. In addition to the obvious motivational effect on American troops and the public that a suitable title can have, some names also target the enemy. A major exercise held in Saudi Arabia before the 1991 Gulf War was called “Inevitable Thunder,” a name that, according to Sieminski, was “clearly intended to intimidate the Iraqis.” The practice of giving military operations code names began during World War I, when German commanders planning complex sequences of operations began to give military actions memorable and sometimes inspiring names. By the 1920s, the United States began naming secret operations after the colors of the paper on which the plans were drawn up. General titles such as “Plan Orange” facilitated communication without revealing details about the content of each plan.
During World War II, the Nazi leadership made the mistake of giving operations names that hinted at real details. Conversations about Adolf Hitler’s “Operation Sealion” were intercepted by the British, helping them understand that Germany was planning an amphibious invasion of the British Isles.
Winston Churchill took a personal interest in the names of operations. The British wartime leader instructed military staff not to choose titles that “implied a sense of boastfulness or excessive self-confidence” or that were “of a frivolous character.” After World War II, the United States began declassifying names for public consumption, a decision that carried considerable public relations risks. The U.S.-led United Nations force in Korea faced criticism for naming “Operation Killer,” a counteroffensive during the Korean War (1950–53), which diplomats complained was worsening relations with China at the time.
During the Vietnam War, then-US President Lyndon Johnson personally intervened to change the name of a major offensive, originally called “Operation Suppression”, to the less brutal name “Operation White Wing”.
Following the controversies surrounding Operations “Murderer” and “Oppressor,” guidelines were established in the 1970s advising staff to avoid nicknames that were “offensive to good taste.” The document also mandated that American military operations be named with two words and that they avoid trademarks or words that “express a degree of hostility incompatible with traditional American ideals.” Sieminski’s 1995 study advises that the military choose meaningful and memorable names, while also recommending that efforts be avoided to train personnel in the creation of operational nicknames. Such a complex semantic task, he concludes, “is an art, not a science.” (RFE)