« Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle, and When a Gaffe is not a Gaffe | Main | Iraq Briefing - 23 October 2008 - Shifting to an Iraqi Operation »
October 20, 2008
"Freedom of Speech in Jihad Analysis: Debunking the Myth of Offensive Words"
About time someone said this.
From a story in today's Washington Times written by the invaluable Bill Gertz:
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."
I hope these guys keep their resumes updated, because they're going to need them if Obama's elected in November. The political correctness on this is bad enough with GW Bush, but it will be absolutely out of control with Obama.
You can download the report from the Times website at the link above. If that disappears, you can go here.
The reason why it is important that we use words like jihad, takfir, Islamist, and the rest is that we need to be clear as to who we are fighting. We need clarity on the nature of the enemy, who he is, and his historical roots. While we must understand that no, not all Muslims accept the idea of violent jihad, we must also understand that all too many do, and that they are the ones currently in control of the umma.
Of course, any "Red Team" is not the end-all-to-be-all. Their job is to provide the "counter" or "alternative" analysis, the purpose of which is to challenge assumptions. It's just that in this case I think they're right.
Read the whole thing, but here is an excerpt from the Executive Summary:
There are a growing number of USG documents that suggest that we stand in danger of (if we have not already) demonizing Islam and/or associating all Muslims with violence simply by invoking the Islamic identity, or Islamist goals, or a particular extremist group. While there is concern that we not label all Muslims as Islamist terrorists, it is proper to address certain aspects of violence as uniquely Islamic. This does not imply that all violence is Islamic, or even that all violence perpetrated by Muslims is uniquely Islamic. The fact is that our enemies cite the sources of Islam as the foundation of their global jihad. We are left with the responsibility of portraying our enemies in an honest and accurate fashion.
There are a lot of problems in our current approach, but one of them is not "demonizing Islam." President Bush and virtually all other Western leaders have gone out of their way to do the opposite.
The problem, rather, is with those who want to define our problem as narrowly as possible. Many do not even want to use the term "war," but rather see it through the lens of law enforcement. They generally see the problem as only al Qaeda and only in Afghanistan. This must end, and we should label our enemies as they are: Jihadists, Takfiris, and Islamists.
Posted by Tom at October 20, 2008 9:30 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1216
Comments
Excellent post Tom! We cannot fight any enemy unless we are first honest about the nature of that enemy, what their goals are and what motivates them. Too many in this country want to gloss over the unpleasant truths of what we are up against. And, as you point out, too many want to define terrorism as a crime rather than an act of war. And, as you further point out, they think "getting bin Laden" will solve the problem. Fact is, AQ and OBL didn't start Islamic Terror and ending it will involve more than just dealing with one terror group.
Keep it up!
Posted by: Chris at October 21, 2008 10:29 AM
TRH,
I have not yet finished Kenneth Pollack's "A Path Out of The Desert" but I would like to share one of his points w/ which I agree. He eschews the word "Jihadist" when describing Muslim extremists and entreats the rest of us to do the same.
Bear w/ me as I am writing this from memory. "Jihadist" to a Muslim means "holy warrior." So to call Osama bin Laden a jihadist is to enoble him and his terrorism.
Pollack instead employs "Salafist" or "muslim extremist" although I may be wrong on the latter.
So I disagree w/ calling our enemies jihadists. I also disagree w/ calling them Takfiris which is a term used to describe a muslim who accuses another muslim of apostasy. Some may be Takifiris, others not.
I aslo disagree w/ calling them Islamists as that term is too general and not all Islamists are our enemies.
So, like Pollack, I urge the use of "Salafists" or Muslim extremists" or just plain old Islamic terrrorists."
Regards.
TLGK
Posted by: The Loop Garoo Kid at October 22, 2008 3:35 PM
Hi TLGK
Salafists is reasonable, and I agree that the term applies to them. I agree also that Takfiri does not apply to all of our enemies. Interestingly, I do know that the Anbaris who have joined us refer to AQI as "Takfiris".
I have heard that argument against calling them "jihadists" but weighed that against the "let's call them what they call themselves, it exposes them for who they are, and let's not let them get away with any nonsense about a 'lesser' and 'greater' jihad" In the end I've come down on the latter side but will consider again what you say as Pollack is a person to take seriously.
As for Islamists, I use that term precisely because it is broad, and our enemies consist of a broad range (I think) of Sunni Wahhabists, Muslim Brotherhood, and Shite Khomeinists. But I want to ask you, can you define what you mean by 'broad' here?
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this matter.
Posted by: The Redhunter 
at October 22, 2008 9:35 PM
Hi, Tom,
I think we shouldn't use any Arabic terms to describe the terrorists over there. I know that the term "jihad" was more or less high-jacked by the Islamic extremists, so that won't do. I am not familiar with the other terms.
I am familiar with one term that I have seen in the history books and one I find in the genealogical records of my Christianized Pueblo Indian ancestors that might apply, and that term is "barbarians". The Pueblo Indians are Uto/Aztecan people. In some of the death records from the 1700s and 1800s I find references such as "died at the hands of the barbarians". Sometimes these barbaric tribes would wipe out whole pueblos, burning, mulitlating, as they pillaged.
The peaceful agriculture-based settlements (Pueblos in New Mexico) of my ancestors were often attacked by barbarians. Several of my ancestors were mutilated in raids of the pueblos by barbaric tribes known as Apaches, especially the Chiricahuas, sometimes the Navajos, or Comanches. Funny, the landscape is much like the one in the Middle East, down to the mud brick (adobe) buildings.
These barbarians, now in the Middle East, and a hundred years ago in New Mexico, seem to be splinter groups with no real strong formal organization, and they don't even like each other. The Mescaleros and the Chiricahuas, both Apache people (Athabaskans like the ones in Canada) didn't get along, and neither do the Shiites and Sunnis, both Arab Muslims.
The Spaniards who conquered New Mexico in 1598, and the Mexicans after 1821 didn't do as good a job in controlling the barbarians as did the American Army that came to conquer all in 1846. Both had built forts in the area, but the Americans were more determined. Still it was 1912 before the last barbarian leader Geronimo was dead.
Now we are all Americans here and the barbarians of old are long gone. As Americans we have new barbarians at our door. What to do now? Can we convince the good peaceful people of the Middle East to put down the barbarians in their midst, and how? Could we have a draft and send more troops (males only) for a bigger surge to wipe out the barbarians and save the peaceful people over there? I do keep hearing that more troops are needed.
Emilie
Port Orchard, WA
Posted by: Emilie at October 23, 2008 6:56 PM
"Barbarians" works for me!"
Posted by: The Redhunter at October 23, 2008 9:48 PM
