Two weeks ago, several Bush administration agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, released guidelines on how U.S. officials should talk about terrorism. It’s a mistake to describe Islamic extremists as “jihadists” or “mujahedeen,” the guidelines said, just as it’s wrong to condemn “Islamo-fascism.” As the AP, which obtained a copy of the documents, reported, “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.”
Nearly seven years after the attacks of 9/11, it seemed the administration was finally beginning to appreciate that words matter, particularly when it comes to an international, religio-political dynamic like this one. The president had a little trouble with the stage direction — four days after the AP report, Bush said at a press conference, “We’re in a long struggle as I have told you many a time against these jihadists.” Old habits die hard.
Chances are, the president slipped, forgetting what the counter-terrorism experts advised. Rick Santorum, however, has heard the experts, considered the significance of rhetoric, and decided he wants to go on talking like he has been. (via Matt at TP)
It is now clear from the recent memo that our government’s communications strategy is focused on winning the hearts and minds of moderate (I’m sorry we can’t use that word), I mean mainstream Muslims rather than Main Street Americans. After seven years of war (is war still OK or should I say strong disagreement?), we have sanitized and sensitized our rhetoric to the point where Americans still know little about the radical Muslims we fight.
In speeches I give across the country, I ask basic questions about the ideology and motivation of the enemy. The response? Blank stares. Seven years into this war, that’s an indictment of our government rather than the intelligence of the public. Why should we learn about radical Muslims if they are not the problem?
Our government in this memo is teaching us a politically correct version of the truth. For example, it tells us that democracy and Islam are compatible. But Islam is less compatible with democracy than is Christianity. Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” There was from the beginning a recognition of two realms — the sacred and the secular. From Islam’s inception there has been one realm. Islamic law (sharia) is the law of the government.
Little Ricky sounds a little angry. And confused.
The irony is, Bush has relied on straw-man arguments to condemn critics of his war policy, arguing that “some people” believe Muslims can’t live in a democracy. He was going after Dems, but as it turns out, he was actually describing far-right allies like Santorum.
In his column, Santorum added, “This conflict, like all great conflicts, is not just a military struggle. It’s an ideological struggle, as well. It must be fought in the hearts and minds of people at home and abroad.”
That, of course, is precisely the point of the Bush administration’s guidelines.
[W]hile 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.
It’s unlikely to help when Santorum suggests Christianity is compatible with democracy and Islam isn’t.