When John McCain talks about the U.S. counter-terrorism efforts, he identifies “radical Islamic extremism” as the principal problem we face. When his buddy Joe Lieberman talks about the same issue, he condemns Democrats for neglecting to use phrases like “Islamist extremism” or “Islamist terrorism.”
The Bush administration is weighing in on the rhetorical aspect of this debate, but I don’t imagine McCain or Lieberman are going to like what the administration had to say. (thanks to reader S.T. for the tip)
Don’t call them jihadists any more. And don’t call al-Qaida a movement.
The Bush administration has launched a new front in the war on terrorism, this time targeting language.
Federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, are telling their people not to describe Islamic extremists as “jihadists” or “mujahedeen,” according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. Lingo like “Islamo-fascism” is out, too.
The reason: Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates.
Interesting. The directive coincides with the efforts of the Islamic Society of North America, which has been trying to urge the McCain campaign not to use “Islamic” when describing terrorists. The McCain campaign said it would ignore the ISNA’s requests and continue to use the language McCain prefers.
I’m curious, does the McCain campaign think the Bush administration’s State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and National Counter Terrorism Center should be ignored, too?
As for the administration’s message, it seems officials seem to realize the significance of these religio-political words.
For example, while Americans may understand “jihad” to mean “holy war,” it is in fact a broader Islamic concept of the struggle to do good, says the guidance prepared for diplomats and other officials tasked with explaining the war on terror to the public. Similarly, “mujahedeen,” which means those engaged in jihad, must be seen in its broader context.
U.S. officials may be “unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims,” says a Homeland Security report. It’s entitled “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims.”
“Regarding ‘jihad,’ even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world,” the report says.
Language is critical in the war on terror, says another document, an internal “official use only” memorandum circulating through Washington entitled “Words that Work and Words that Don’t: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication.”
The memo, originally prepared in March by the Extremist Messaging Branch at the National Counter Terrorism Center, was approved for diplomatic use this week by the State Department, which plans to distribute a version to all U.S. embassies, officials said.
“It’s not what you say but what they hear,” the memo says in bold italic lettering, listing 14 points about how to better present the war on terrorism.
“Don’t take the bait,” it says, urging officials not to react when Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida affiliates speak. “We should offer only minimal, if any, response to their messages. When we respond loudly, we raise their prestige in the Muslim world.”
First, it took the Bush administration more than six years to figure this out?
Second, if a President Clinton or President Obama had issued the identical directive to administration officials, what do you want to bet they’d be slammed as politically-correct terrorist coddlers?
And third, now that the administration is beginning to appreciate the significance of rhetoric in this conflict, is there any chance at all that Republicans will follow Bush’s lead?
The administration’s memo added several specifics:
* “Never use the terms ‘jihadist’ or ‘mujahedeen’ in conversation to describe the terrorists. … Calling our enemies ‘jihadis’ and their movement a global ‘jihad’ unintentionally legitimizes their actions.”
* “Use the terms ‘violent extremist’ or ‘terrorist.’ Both are widely understood terms that define our enemies appropriately and simultaneously deny them any level of legitimacy.”
* On the other hand, avoid ill-defined and offensive terminology: “We are communicating with, not confronting, our audiences. Don’t insult or confuse them with pejorative terms such as ‘Islamo-fascism,’ which are considered offensive by many Muslims.”
I have to assume Republicans aren’t going to care for this at all.