THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XI, Issue # 13, January 12, 2009
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
GOVERNMENT POLICIES STIFLE TALK OF ISLAM
By Dr. David J. Rusin
OUR NATIONAL LEADERS' WEAK-KNEED DEFINITION OF AMERICA'S ENEMY IN THE CURRENT GLOBAL CONFLICT:
THE RELUCTANCE OF OUR LEADERS TO FACE REALITY & DESCRIBE THE ISLAMIST ENEMY AS DRIVEN BY A TOTALITARIAN
IDEOLOGY BASED ON THE ISLAMIC RELIGION -- A SELF-IMPOSED STRAITJACKET WHICH HINDERS DISCUSSION OF AN
ENEMY THAT WISHES TO SUBJUGATE THE ENTIRE WORLD UNDER SHARI'A LAW, A STRAITJACKET WHICH LEAVES US WITH
VERY LITTLE CHANCE OF KNOWING & DEFEATING THE ENEMY -- WHAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WILL NEED TO DO
ABOUT GOVERNMENT POLICIES THAT DOWNPLAY CONNECTIONS BETWEEN ISLAM & ISLAMIST TERRORISM
FULL STORY:
When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt addressed Congress after Pearl Harbor, he cited Japan fifteen times in a
speech of five hundred words. When President George Walker Bush did the same after 9-11, he uttered "Islam" or
"Muslim" more sparingly — just eleven times in a speech of three thousand words. And, when U.S. Senators Barack
Hussein Obama and John Sidney McCain III spoke at the respective party conventions and the debates, asking to be
entrusted with America's security, not a single reference to Islam could be found.
"Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about," noted linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf.
Based on the language used by Western governments, one must conclude that they do not want anybody thinking
about the fundamental role that Islam plays in the conflict with Muslim radicals. If this self-imposed straitjacket
hinders discussion of a foe that wishes to subjugate the world under Shari'a law, then we have little chance of
knowing him. And, as Sun Tzu observed, only by knowing the enemy can he be defeated.
The seeds of this silence were planted even while rescue teams picked through the smoldering wreckage of Ground
Zero. Given the intensity of those weeks, it is no surprise that words and actions would set the tone for years to come.
More often than not, however, the wrong words were spoken, the wrong actions were undertaken, and the wrong
tone was set. Three events in particular stand out.
First, there was the aforementioned September 20, 2001, speech to Congress. By reiterating the "war on terror"
phraseology that he had introduced on the day of the attacks, Bush defined the conflict in terms of a tactic (terrorism)
rather than a strategic enemy (radical Islam). Moreover, of the references to Muslims and their faith, many sought to
convince Americans that there was but a tenuous link between Islam and 9-11. His claim that "the terrorists practice a
fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics"
remains an egregious example of happy talk displacing reality.
The second sign arrived days later when Operation Infinite Justice became Operation Enduring Freedom. Connecting
the change to fallout from Bush's hastily retracted "crusade" remark, the BBC reported that Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld "said the administration had quickly reconsidered the original name because, in the Islamic faith, such
finality is considered something provided only by God." While the initial title of the military response to 9-11 was less
than inspiring, its modification foreshadowed how Muslim sensibilities, both real and imagined, would wield veto
power over language at the highest of levels.
The third domino fell when Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi voiced an undeniable truth. "We must be aware of
the superiority of our civilization," he stated on September 26, 2001, "a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect
for human rights, and — in contrast with Islamic countries — respect for religious and political rights, a system that
has, as its value, understanding of diversity and tolerance." Criticism rained down on him for daring to assert that
nations which uphold basic freedoms are preferable to those which do not. Soon an emasculated Berlusconi was
testifying to his "deep respect" for the "great" religion of Islam — and a promising opportunity to define the
ideological parameters of the war had been lost.
Seven years on, those seeds — watered by Western leaders' intermittent praise of the "religion of peace and love" —
have matured into a thicket of government policies and "suggestions" designed to remove Islam from official discourse.
British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has come to epitomize this newspeak, declaring in January, 2008, that terrorism
would henceforth be known as "anti-Islamic activity," since "there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize" —
jihadists' claims to the contrary. The Home Office soon confirmed that phrases like "Islamic extremism" had been
jettisoned, due to fears that they inflame Muslims. Previously, the Foreign Office had asked Ministers to stop alluding
to the "war on terror" for the same reason. Yet, if terrorism is "anti-Islamic activity," would not the "war on terror" be
pro-Islamic?
To keep everybody on message — and away from Islam — Smith's Home Office assembled a phrasebook that,
according to the Guardian, "tells civil servants not to use terms such as ‘Islamist extremism' or ‘jihadi
fundamentalist,' but, instead, to refer to violent extremism and criminal murderers or thugs." The European Union has
instituted similar guidelines, instructing government spokesmen to utilize "non-offensive" phrases when making
statements and to avoid "jihad" or "Islamic."
The language police have infiltrated key U.S. agencies as well. Terminology to Define the Terrorists:
Recommendations from American Muslims, a January, 2008, Department of Homeland Security paper, begins by
professing that the government's words "must accurately identify the nature of the challenges that face our generation."
But, then, it proceeds to do just the opposite, urging "caution in using terms such as ‘jihadist,' ‘Islamic terrorist,'
‘Islamist,' and ‘holy warrior,'" based on the assumption that such words help legitimize radicals and offend moderates.
By the way, "moderate Muslim" is out too. DHS has refused to reveal which "influential Muslim Americans" —
"moderate" or otherwise — were consulted for the project.
The National Counterterrorism Center soon developed a follow-up document, Words That Work and Words That
Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication, advising on how to "describe terrorists who invoke Islamic
theology." Bullet points such as "Don't Invoke Islam" and "Don't Harp on Muslim Identity" make it clear that religion
is to be swept under the rug. The recommendations have been adopted by the U.S. State Department, and Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice has led by example, eliminating references to jihad from her public comments.
It is not just words intended for mass consumption that have been suppressed. The case of Major Stephen Coughlin
demonstrates how political correctness threatens to disarm policymakers behind closed doors. In early 2008, Coughlin,
an expert on jihad warfare, was released from his post with the Joint Staff, after feuding with a Muslim official who, as
Bill Gertz reported, had wanted him "to take a softer line on Islam and Islamic law elements that promote extremism."
Central to the dispute was Coughlin's weighty thesis, To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About
Jihad, which contends that "we do not understand the Islamic components" of the present conflict — a situation
that many inside and outside of government work to perpetuate.
There are, however, hints that a backlash is brewing. A recent study by the Inspectorate of Constabulary and Audit
Commission finds that the ambiguous terminology favored by the British Home Office is hampering efforts to fight
domestic radicalization. "Switching language … causes confusion," one local council head bemoans in the document.
Another suggests that the guidelines have led people to say nothing because they are "worried about saying the
wrong thing" and being called "racist." Instead, many officials express "a preference for plain speaking so that issues
could be dealt with openly, rather than being avoided or disguised as something else."
In addition, a U.S. Central Command "red team" has produced Freedom of Speech in Jihad Analysis: Debunking the
Myth of Offensive Words, a report that questions policies aimed at downplaying connections between Islam and
terrorism. The report argues:
"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. …The fact is 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."
President-elect Obama would be wise to build on this momentum. First, he should order a top-down review of the
language that government agencies employ to describe Islamists and the war they wage on the West. Second, in a nod
to critics of the Homeland Security document, he should pledge greater transparency with regard to the individuals and
organizations invited to help shape the lexicon.
Confucius warned:
". . . if language is not correct, then what is said is not what
is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must
be done remains undone."
There is much that remains undone in the struggle against Islamism, both violent and nonviolent. The West cannot
afford to compound these challenges by labeling them imprecisely.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
Middle East -- Arabs, Arab States,
& Their Middle Eastern Neighbors
American Foreign Policy -- The Middle East
International Politics & World Disorder:
War, Peace, & Geopolitics in the Real World:
Foreign Affairs & U.S. National Security
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
Counterterrorism & U.S. National Security
U.S. National Security Strategy
Dr. David J. Rusin is a research associate at Islamist Watch and a Philadelphia-based editor for Pajamas Media.
He holds a Ph.D. in Physics and Astronomy from the University of Pennsylvania.
The foregoing article by Dr. Rusin was originally published in Pajamas Media, January 9, 2009, and
can be found on the Internet website maintained by the Middle East Forum, a foreign policy think tank which seeks to
define and promote American interests in the Middle East, defining U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam,
working for Palestinian Arab acceptance of the State of Israel, improving the management of U.S. efforts to promote
constitutional democracy in the Middle East, reducing America's energy dependence on the Middle East, more robustly
asserting U.S. interests vis-ŕ-vis Saudi Arabia, and countering the Iranian threat.
(Article URL: http://www.meforum.org/article/2046)
Republished with Permission of the Middle East Forum
Reprinted from the Middle East Forum News
mefnews@meforum.org (MEF NEWS)
January 12, 2009
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XI, 2009
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity