Monday, April 28, 2008
Do As We Say. . .
Jihadi is out according to new government guidelines regarding how US agencies refer to Islamic extremists. The AP reports that the contents of a memo entitled "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication" has largely now been adopted by Pentagon and State Department spokespeople and officials.
As anyone paying attention has learned, jihad and mujahideen have multiple connotations in the Islamic world, mostly positive ones. Not so long ago, like in the Reagan years, they were pretty positive terms in the US as well--back when those groups had their US-provided stinger missile sights trained at Soviet troops being bled dry in Afghanistan. What a difference a few decades and a sunny September morning can make.
The change is really a good idea, although I'm distressed it took so long to implement. James Fallows wrote an excellent article in 2006 that sourced a wide variety of counter-terrorism experts and to a person they were arguing for such a language change, and had been for years. Fallows wrote:
"Jim Guirard, a writer and former Senate staffer, says that America’s response has helped confirm bin Laden’s worldview in an unintended way. The Arabic terms often brought into English to describe Islamic extremists—jihadists or mujahideen for “warriors,” plus the less-frequently used shahiddin for “martyrs”—are, according to Guirard, exactly the terms al-Qaeda would like to see used. Mujahideen essentially means “holy warriors”; the other terms imply righteous struggle in the cause of Islam. The Iraqi clergyman-warlord Muqtada al-Sadr named his paramilitary force the Mahdi Army. To Sunnis and Shiites alike, the Mahdi is the ultimate savior of mankind, equivalent to the Messiah. Branches of Islam disagree about the Mahdi’s exact identity and the timing of his arrival on earth, but each time U.S. officials refer to insurgents of the Mahdi Army, they confer legitimacy on their opponent in all Muslims’ eyes."
Fallows went on to note that:
"With the advice of Islamic scholars and think-tank officials, Guirard has assembled an alternative lexicon he thinks U.S. officials should use in both English and Arabic. These include hirabah (“unholy war”) instead of jihad; irhabists (“terrorists”) instead of jihadists; mufsidoon (“evildoers”) instead of mujahideen; and so on. The long-term effect, he says, would be like labeling certain kinds of battle genocide or war crime rather than plain combat—not decisive, but useful."
Again, this is a good thing, although a bit of acceptable smirking is allowed (A dollar to the first AHU reader who can cite a YouTube video with W butchering the word mufsidoon.). I only wish the next administration would follow the rest the suggestions made in that fine article. Its long but worth a read.
Jihadi is out according to new government guidelines regarding how US agencies refer to Islamic extremists. The AP reports that the contents of a memo entitled "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication" has largely now been adopted by Pentagon and State Department spokespeople and officials.
As anyone paying attention has learned, jihad and mujahideen have multiple connotations in the Islamic world, mostly positive ones. Not so long ago, like in the Reagan years, they were pretty positive terms in the US as well--back when those groups had their US-provided stinger missile sights trained at Soviet troops being bled dry in Afghanistan. What a difference a few decades and a sunny September morning can make.
The change is really a good idea, although I'm distressed it took so long to implement. James Fallows wrote an excellent article in 2006 that sourced a wide variety of counter-terrorism experts and to a person they were arguing for such a language change, and had been for years. Fallows wrote:
"Jim Guirard, a writer and former Senate staffer, says that America’s response has helped confirm bin Laden’s worldview in an unintended way. The Arabic terms often brought into English to describe Islamic extremists—jihadists or mujahideen for “warriors,” plus the less-frequently used shahiddin for “martyrs”—are, according to Guirard, exactly the terms al-Qaeda would like to see used. Mujahideen essentially means “holy warriors”; the other terms imply righteous struggle in the cause of Islam. The Iraqi clergyman-warlord Muqtada al-Sadr named his paramilitary force the Mahdi Army. To Sunnis and Shiites alike, the Mahdi is the ultimate savior of mankind, equivalent to the Messiah. Branches of Islam disagree about the Mahdi’s exact identity and the timing of his arrival on earth, but each time U.S. officials refer to insurgents of the Mahdi Army, they confer legitimacy on their opponent in all Muslims’ eyes."
Fallows went on to note that:
"With the advice of Islamic scholars and think-tank officials, Guirard has assembled an alternative lexicon he thinks U.S. officials should use in both English and Arabic. These include hirabah (“unholy war”) instead of jihad; irhabists (“terrorists”) instead of jihadists; mufsidoon (“evildoers”) instead of mujahideen; and so on. The long-term effect, he says, would be like labeling certain kinds of battle genocide or war crime rather than plain combat—not decisive, but useful."
Again, this is a good thing, although a bit of acceptable smirking is allowed (A dollar to the first AHU reader who can cite a YouTube video with W butchering the word mufsidoon.). I only wish the next administration would follow the rest the suggestions made in that fine article. Its long but worth a read.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Apocalypse: Now? part 1
Sadly, this is the first in a series , I fear.
I just paid $3.53 for gas; my neighbors in NJ were waiting in lines and fighting over $3.17 gas on the Turnpike before the price went up in the state-mandated pricing. A guy shot a constable who was trying to evict him in suburban Philly, and Costco and Sam's Club have just strated rationing rice. Oh yeah, and the supply of rye flour is almost depleted for the year. . . in April.
Sadly, this is the first in a series , I fear.
I just paid $3.53 for gas; my neighbors in NJ were waiting in lines and fighting over $3.17 gas on the Turnpike before the price went up in the state-mandated pricing. A guy shot a constable who was trying to evict him in suburban Philly, and Costco and Sam's Club have just strated rationing rice. Oh yeah, and the supply of rye flour is almost depleted for the year. . . in April.
Sorry, Charlie
OK, well Charlie Gibson has already gotten a raft of shit (along with co-moderator George Stuffin'envelopes) for his dismal "gotcha" performance at the last Democratic debate (held right here in Always Sunny Philadelphia).
Gibson asked Obama if he was an elitist. Yet in a later question he assumed that a local, small college professor made $100,000 and figured that a husband and wife team so employed dragged in $200,000 per year--and with that income status (no kids mentioned or implied) that they were solid middle income folks being squeezed by the pressures of daily life.
Yo, Charlie, 200k isn't chump change. You've been hanging around the superwealthy and just plain very-well compensated (like yourself, nes't pas?) in NY, LA and the like for so long you don't even recognize what real people earn. FYI: Only 6 percent of the nation earns that much, far from the struggling middle class. And yet he implies Obama is 'out of touch.'
Meanwhile, over at CNN Lou Dobbs again wrings his hands about Obama, saying "Just what we don't need is a typical Ivy-League elitist." That would be Lou Dobbs, Harvard '67.
Just no shame (or clue) with these people.
OK, well Charlie Gibson has already gotten a raft of shit (along with co-moderator George Stuffin'envelopes) for his dismal "gotcha" performance at the last Democratic debate (held right here in Always Sunny Philadelphia).
Gibson asked Obama if he was an elitist. Yet in a later question he assumed that a local, small college professor made $100,000 and figured that a husband and wife team so employed dragged in $200,000 per year--and with that income status (no kids mentioned or implied) that they were solid middle income folks being squeezed by the pressures of daily life.
Yo, Charlie, 200k isn't chump change. You've been hanging around the superwealthy and just plain very-well compensated (like yourself, nes't pas?) in NY, LA and the like for so long you don't even recognize what real people earn. FYI: Only 6 percent of the nation earns that much, far from the struggling middle class. And yet he implies Obama is 'out of touch.'
Meanwhile, over at CNN Lou Dobbs again wrings his hands about Obama, saying "Just what we don't need is a typical Ivy-League elitist." That would be Lou Dobbs, Harvard '67.
Just no shame (or clue) with these people.
The AHU Official Endorsement for POTUS
Well, kinda. . . Exerpt from a letter to my Dad--Sums up best my current political thinking.
"I guess that when it comes to Obama I've taken a (measured) leap of faith to a certain extent. He's in a unique position by virtue of his newness, his thoughtfulness, and his intelligence to best shepherd us through some of the changes that, as I see it, are on the near horizon. And maybe some reconciliation stuff as well, who knows. Change happens in unexpected places and in unexpected ways.
By contrast, McCain is just out of his element. He admits he knows nothing about the economy or, frankly, many crucial issues the next president will face (despite his recently clunky attempts to portray the opposite). As for his supposed forte, foreign policy, he is pretty much an unrepentant Neocon (he was the main choice of Perle, Feith, et al back in 2000, and these same architects of the Iraq war are his primary foreign policy advisors now). He won the GOP by default, much to the chagrin of the party, yet he seems intent on echoing Bush's policies at a time where 81% of the country thinks we're on the wrong track.
Anyway, the Hillary thing just makes me even more sad, as I think all things considered she has the best bona fides to do the job (though she has rarely emphasized her real governing qualities in the campaign). Instead her campaign, once thought to be little more than her pre-coronation for the nomination, foundered on the rocks of an unexpected Obama campaign. She would, I have come to believe, throw Obama (and her parties ideals and issues) under the bus before November in order to look toward running again in 2012.
There is really no mathematical way she can win without totally subverting the electoral choice of the party voters, via the superdelegates. And if that happened minus a really, really serious Obama implosion (the old "catch me in bed with a live man or dead woman" cliche), its a sure bet the animosity created by such convention moves would doom her general election candidacy anyway. So why persist unless she knows something really, really nasty about Obama or if she's thinking ahead rather than for all of the policies that she espouses in her speeches and ads?
Funny isn't it how the more 'democratic' of the parties put such an undemocratic counterweight into its process? No worse overall I guess than the winner-take-all primaries of the GOP, designed to annoint a candidate preferable to the GOP bigwigs, which didn't happen this year when Romney and Huckabee's fight defied the norm and left McCain unexpectedly in the driver's seat.Alas, I am forced to make a choice. Indeed not my favorite, but I've made the jump because I want serious change, and frankly in the coming years I expect serious change will happen regardless of our wishes, and I think Obama is the best person to be at the helm.
Of course, I could be utterly mistaken. Such are elections.
Well, kinda. . . Exerpt from a letter to my Dad--Sums up best my current political thinking.
"I guess that when it comes to Obama I've taken a (measured) leap of faith to a certain extent. He's in a unique position by virtue of his newness, his thoughtfulness, and his intelligence to best shepherd us through some of the changes that, as I see it, are on the near horizon. And maybe some reconciliation stuff as well, who knows. Change happens in unexpected places and in unexpected ways.
By contrast, McCain is just out of his element. He admits he knows nothing about the economy or, frankly, many crucial issues the next president will face (despite his recently clunky attempts to portray the opposite). As for his supposed forte, foreign policy, he is pretty much an unrepentant Neocon (he was the main choice of Perle, Feith, et al back in 2000, and these same architects of the Iraq war are his primary foreign policy advisors now). He won the GOP by default, much to the chagrin of the party, yet he seems intent on echoing Bush's policies at a time where 81% of the country thinks we're on the wrong track.
Anyway, the Hillary thing just makes me even more sad, as I think all things considered she has the best bona fides to do the job (though she has rarely emphasized her real governing qualities in the campaign). Instead her campaign, once thought to be little more than her pre-coronation for the nomination, foundered on the rocks of an unexpected Obama campaign. She would, I have come to believe, throw Obama (and her parties ideals and issues) under the bus before November in order to look toward running again in 2012.
There is really no mathematical way she can win without totally subverting the electoral choice of the party voters, via the superdelegates. And if that happened minus a really, really serious Obama implosion (the old "catch me in bed with a live man or dead woman" cliche), its a sure bet the animosity created by such convention moves would doom her general election candidacy anyway. So why persist unless she knows something really, really nasty about Obama or if she's thinking ahead rather than for all of the policies that she espouses in her speeches and ads?
Funny isn't it how the more 'democratic' of the parties put such an undemocratic counterweight into its process? No worse overall I guess than the winner-take-all primaries of the GOP, designed to annoint a candidate preferable to the GOP bigwigs, which didn't happen this year when Romney and Huckabee's fight defied the norm and left McCain unexpectedly in the driver's seat.Alas, I am forced to make a choice. Indeed not my favorite, but I've made the jump because I want serious change, and frankly in the coming years I expect serious change will happen regardless of our wishes, and I think Obama is the best person to be at the helm.
Of course, I could be utterly mistaken. Such are elections.
