Stolen from a discussion on an email list, a small usage question:
What's the difference between a "fiasco" and a "debacle"? Is there a difference, or are they perfect synonyms?
My thoughts below the fold.
Personally, I'm with the person on the listserver who said that "there should be a touch of
comedy to a fiasco, and a touch of tragedy in a debacle," but I'm interested to hear what other people think.
I would have said something very similar. Much more interesting, to me, is what pronunciation of debacle is correct...
I think the definitive work on `fiasco' was an episode of This American Life: http://www.thislife.org/pages/descriptions/97/61.html I think it's largely consistant with the distinction made here..
Then, of course, there's a snafu. Where do you think lies?
I tend to think that a debacle is a more serious event than a fiasco. A debacle is ruinous, whereas a fiasco is merely damaging. Watergate was a debacle; Iran-Contra was a fiasco.
It will be interesting to see if Polonium 210 remains a fiasco or becomes a debacle for Putin.
In my personal linguology, a fiasco is just something that happens. A debacle is something that happens through neglect, stupidity, or lack of reasonable foresight.
Which is a different take on the comedy/tragedy angle, I think.
So then Thomas Ricks book on Iraq should have been called Debacle, instead of Fiasco....
What's a "quagmire", then?