Choosing our words strategically
Exactly. The aim is to isolate our enemies, not to unnecessarily create new ones through the use of sloppy language. This is a point I’ve made before.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.
It’s long overdue, since Dr. Streusand and LTC Tunnell made essentially the same point two years ago. [pdf]
It’s about time!
This isn’t even a matter of whether it’s strategically prudent or imprudent to use these terms; it comes down to the fact that they’re imprecise. Not all people who believe in jihad believe in the most violent and offensive versions of it. The writings of Islam, like those of every religion, are complex and multidimensional; to assume that “Islam” necessarily supports the kinds of actions certain individuals have been carrying out in its name is absurd.
When did this happen? Why hasn’t it generated more noise?
Comment by AGW — April 28, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
“This is a point I’ve made before.”
Link is broken. I mention it only because I would like to see what you’ve said in this area.
Comment by Jason — April 28, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
Oops. Thank for the catch Jason. Link is fixed now. The point is to define the enemy as narrowly and precisely as possible.
AGW,
True, and if we don’t make that distinction, then we’re actually helping al-Qaeda’s narrative. The memo noted in the linked article was written in March and approved by State last week. As I indicate, though, folks have been making this point for several years (…but it hasn’t seemed to rise out of the realm of wonkdom).
Comment by Wiggins — April 28, 2008 @ 1:28 pm