source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121184599077421311.html
(Wall
Street Journal)
The Department of Homeland Security thinks it's a bad idea to use the
word "liberty" when describing America's foreign policy goals. Nor
does it much like the terms "Islamist" and "jihadist." Heaven forbid
the federal government cause needless offense in the current war
against, well, whoever.
Such are the recommendations on "Terminology to Define Terrorists," a
nine-page, "Official Use Only" memo issued in January by Homeland
Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. It pur****ts to
represent the suggestions of a "wide variety" of unnamed American
Muslim leaders consulted on the subject. And while it is not a
statement of official policy, it neatly captures the sophisticated
government thinking about its rhetorical strategies for what used to
be called the "Global War on Terror."
Now, thanks to the DHS brain trust, we are offered a "Global Struggle
for Security and Progress." Perhaps with further moral and
intellectual refinement, we can someday embark on a General Effort
Against Negativity and Ungoodness.
In "1984," George Orwell famously created Newspeak, "the only language
in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year." How things
haven't changed. The Homeland Security memo begins by declaring that
"Words matter," whereupon it proceeds to suggest that some words
matter so much it's best not to use them at all. Instead, the memo
proposes a "strategic terminology" to dictate the utterances of public
officials regarding the so-called Global Struggle.
In the new dispensation, much of which has re****tedly been adopted by
the State Department, using the word Islamic is out because it
potentially "[concedes] the terrorists' claims that they are
legitimate adherents of Islam." Use of the word jihad is said to
"glamorize terrorism." Islamist =96 a neutral and broadly accepted term
for those who espouse Islam as a political system =96 is frowned upon
because "the general public . . . may not appreciate the academic
distinction between Islamism and Islam." Using the word Salafism, the
religious variant of Islam espoused by al Qaeda, may have the
unfortunate effect of demonizing those Salafists who aren't violent.
The term moderate Muslims may include those who aren't religiously
observant, and thus offend those Muslims who are. "Mainstream Muslim"
is supposedly better.
In its most eye-catching recommendation (which goes strangely
unmentioned in an Associated Press story about the memo), the DHS
authors explain their preference for the word "progress" over
"liberty."
"The struggle is for 'progress,' over which no nation has a monopoly,"
reads the memo. "The experts we consulted debated the word 'liberty,'
but rejected it because many around the world would discount the term
as a buzzword for American hegemony. But all people want to sup****t
'progress,' which emphasizes that there is a path for building strong
families and prosperity among the current dislocations of
globalization and change. And progress is precisely what the
terrorists oppose through their violent tactics and through their
efforts to impose a totalitarian world view."
It seems to have escaped the authors' notice that the most formidable
totalitarian movement of the 20th century =96 communism =96 was, by its
own lights, "progressive." It seems to have escaped their notice that
the essence of a totalitarian system is the denial of liberty (often
in the name of progress). It seems to have escaped their notice that
"progress" is a word that signifies nothing. Exactly what is one
progressing to?
It also seems to have escaped their notice that Muslims themselves
might aspire to live in conditions of political, economic and social
liberty, U.S. "hegemony" notwithstanding. As for defining the current
struggle as one for "security," it might be observed that dictatorial
regimes often have solid track records as crime fighters: Mussolini
crushed the mafia.
The inanity here is so mind-boggling that it seems almost deliberate,
and causes one to wonder just which "American Muslim leaders" the U.S.
government is consulting. Last October, Homeland Security Secretary
Michael Chertoff was a guest of honor at a Ramadan event at which,
according to one participant, he was publicly thanked by the president
of the Islamic Society of North America for "keeping the doors open so
we can advise you on how to engage the Muslim world."
For the record, the ISNA was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the
case of the Holy Land Foundation, a U.S.-based charity alleged to have
had ties with Hamas. Imagine if the Kennedy administration had
consulted with the Workers World Party on strategies to contain the
Soviet Union, and you get a sense of what Homeland Security is doing
today.
No doubt the government really does need better terminology to
describe the war we're in, which is against violent Islamic extremists
and every regime, warlord, charity, school or imam sup****ting them. No
doubt, too, we need the sup****t of every Muslim we can rally to our
side. Those many millions who do not shrink from the word "liberty"
might just fit the bill.
|
