Ix-Nay On The Olitical Correctness-Pay
Military report says unpleasant, offensive terms like “Jihadi” and “Islamist” are necessary, however hurtful they may be … Washington Times:
A U.S. military “Red Team” charged with challenging conventional thinking says that words like “jihad” and “Islamist” are needed in discussing 21st-century terrorism and that federal agencies that avoid the words soft-pedaled the link between religious extremism and violent acts.
“We must reject the notion that Islam and Arabic stand apart as bodies of knowledge that cannot be critiqued or discussed as elements of understanding our enemies in this conflict,” said the internal report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.
The report, “Freedom of Speech in Jihad Analysis: Debunking the Myth of Offensive Words,” was written by unnamed civilian analysts and contractors for the U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for the Middle East and South Asia. It is thought to be the first official document to challenge those in the government who seek to downplay the role of Islam in inspiring some terrorist violence.
“The fact is our enemies cite the source of Islam as the foundation for their global jihad,” the report said. “We are left with the responsibility of portraying our enemies in an honest and accurate fashion.”
…
It cites two Bush administration documents that appear to minimize anylink between radical Islam and terrorism.
A January 2008 memorandum from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties stated that unidentified American Muslims recommended that the U.S. government avoid using the terms “jihadist,” “Islamic terrorist,” “Islamist” or “holy warrior,” asserting that would create a “negative climate” and spawn acts of harassment and discrimination.
Dan Sutherland, Homeland Security officer for civil rights and civil liberties, said the document is not department policy.
“This was a compilation of recommendations and thoughts provided to us by some prominent American Muslim thinkers and never was intended to be Department of Homeland Security policy,” he said in an interview.
“If a paper from another part of government says this doesn’t make sense, that’s a valid point. This memo is a thought piece meant to stir discussion.”
Mr. Sutherland said he agrees that a debate on terrorist terminology is needed in describing “the very serious threat we face.”
A second document mentioned by the report was developed for the State Department by the National Counterterrorism Center’s Extremist Messaging Branch.
It urges officials to use the term “violent extremist” and never to use “jihadist” because that will “legitimize” terrorists.
Michael E. Leiter, director of the counterterrorism center, questioned some of the memo’s conclusions during a July 10 Senate hearing, said spokesman Carl Kropf.
“I do think you cannot separate out the fact that the terror fight we are fighting today involves Islam as a religion,” Mr. Leiter said under questioning from Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent. He added, however, “the ideology which motivates these terrorists has very little to do in reality with the religion of Islam.”
One of the most sensitive issues in the new report involves the word jihad.
An Arabic word derived from the verb meaning “to strive,” it appears about 30 times in the Koran, but “the preponderance of references refer to internal striving to prove one’s piety,” said William Graham, a professor of Middle East Studies at Harvard University.
Yeah, well, language evolves over time, and if I say I “know” a Jihadi when I see one, it doesn’t mean I engage said Jihadi in a horizontal tango, as it might have in Biblical times. Hang on, why the heck are we taking any war advice from Harvard anyway? I’ll see your preponderance and raise you a caveful of murderous religious fanatics.
It is ironic that the famously bellicose Bush administration has also been a source of PC thinking and practice, though I haven’t noticed they get any credit for that from the usual suspects. Look for the de-demonification of our enemies to continue under an Obama administration, until they are rendered unrecognizable.
A nod to the essential Small Wars Journal, which also has this review of “Kill Bin Laden: A Delta Force Commander’s Account of the Hunt for the World’s Most Wanted Man.”
Topics: Islam, Jihad, hated Crusaders, linguistics, media
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:16 am on Monday, October 20, 2008
4 Responses to “Ix-Nay On The Olitical Correctness-Pay”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
October 20th, 2008 at 9:01 am
I suppose it wouldn’t be politically correct for me to suggest that our enemies take political correctness and shove it up their ass?
October 20th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
As far as I’m concerned, “jihadi” and “Islamist” are perfectly apt descriptors for terrorists from the Middle East (or any terrorist anywhere who practices terrorism in the name of Allah and his Prophet). If Islam wants to dissociate itself from jihadis and Islamists (and the misanthropic Wahhabists, for that matter), then it needs to undergo a distinct process of reformation, much as its predecessor religions have done.
October 21st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I believe the proper, technical, term for our current enemy is jihadiscum.
The BigHenry:
I could get behind a suggestion such as you propose but I offer this amendment.
Have that political correctness wrapped up in something sharp and jagged and inserted until they bleed out.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:55 am
“then it needs to undergo a distinct process of reformation, much as its predecessor religions have done.” RebeccaH.
There’s no way that it can. That would be an admission of the fallibility of it’s pedophile founder. And we all know that the pervert was perfect, so did his 9 year old wife.