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.
Comments:
Post a Comment
