The word "Jihadist"
By Oscar98 Posted in Military Roundtable — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I've noted before that I'm not a fan of calling terrorists "Jihadists." This article from the AP is about 3 weeks old, but indicates that the Bush Admin (finally) agrees with many info ops practitioners such as the US Army Special Forces.
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.
I know, I know... how P.C. of me, right? The thing is, I've worked with more than a few information ops troops in the last few years who've absolutely emphasized this point to commanders about to head out to the sandbox. To paraphrase one IO officer on the staff of a Division CO headed out to Iraq, "calling insurgents Jihadists effectively confirms and elevates their position to the local populace."
Another person I respect in this field makes the point that "Jihad" is mandated by Islam. However, there are multiple forms of Jihad. Literally, all Muslims are "Jihadists." Now... when bin Laden is out there claiming that his Jihad of the Sword is the highest form of Jihad, it is tough for "moderate" Muslims and scholars to try and dissuade middle eastern populations that Al Qaeda should pound sand. Afterall, we are actually agreeing with bin Laden that the 9/11 hijackers, suicide bombers, or IED placers by dubbing them "Mujahideen" or "Jihadists," etc. At a minimum... "we don't get it."
You're free to call them whatever you want, but that may hinder the political/military effort to convince the populace that they no longer should be the "sea" in which the terrorist "fish" swim in. My own personal preference you might ask? I guess "Islamic Militants."
Homeland Security offers the following suggestions:
_ "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."
Afterall, I'd be rightfully ticked off if someone called Eric Rudolph a "Christofascist."
In keeping with Sun Tzu's Art of War,
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill...
...In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good.
Words matter in The Long War. Just some food for thought...
Support libertarian Republicans here and here.
www.rlc.org
www.fairtax.org
They are pleased by it, puffed up, and made legit in the eyes of the ordinary law-abiding Muslim. We don't want to give them the credit of being allied with some holy war to restore the Caliphate.
I don't know what Rush said, but I thought what you said was what I was saying...
The point is, in the southwest Asia (and to most Muslims), "Jihad" is not a pejorative term. We should not be labeling terrorists as doing Allah's work.
Support libertarian Republicans here and here.
www.rlc.org
www.fairtax.org
Probably because you were logical about it :-).
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
condemning the violent extremists, THEN I'll be a bit more interested in whether or not I'm offending their delicate senses by calling the violent extremists Islamo-Fascists.
Oscar, the argument against legitimizing these jerkoffs by calling them jihadists - you have a good argument.
But regarding what more mainstream Muslims in the ME find offensive, when they are quick to condemn the US and loathe to condemn disgusting creatures who blow up random civilians - ah, I just don't give a damn. Not even a little bit.
So now I know the term that I'm going to use exclusively.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
At least it hits the point home about "Jihadists." But, there is an infinite number of terms we can use that are better than Islamofascist, too.
Eventually, we have to get to the business of killing the 1% that might be inclined to terrorism (keep in mind, that's still millions), and we'll need the help of more than just 50% of their populace. If we're facing a global insurgency (and I believe we are) the tyranny of the terrorist minority is a real thing.
The American partisans were outnumbered in 1776, but we knew both the physical and psychological terrain far better than the Brits did.
Support libertarian Republicans here and here.
www.rlc.org
www.fairtax.org
I'm not a PC type. I'm the anti-PC, I think.
I heard Rush Limbaugh bring this up. Now, normally Rush is right on the money. He missed this one.
We don't care about offending anyone with the Jihadi label, because even if we did care about offending terrorists, the guys who are in Al Qaeda are not offended by the term. They are pleased by it, puffed up, and made legit in the eyes of the ordinary law-abiding Muslim. We don't want to give them the credit of being allied with some holy war to restore the Caliphate.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.