Earlier this year the Departments of State and Homeland Security received wide criticism for politically correct memos prohibiting the use of certain language in referring to Islamic terrorists. The diplomatic and intelligence communities were urged to “never use the terms jihadist or mujahedeen in conversation to describe the terrorists.” The bureaucrats at State and Homeland Security insist that “calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad unintentionally legitimizes their actions.”
Now the Washington Times writes that a “Red Team” report of civilian analysts at the U.S. Central Command has published a study, ” Freedom of Speech in Jihad Analysis: Debunking the Myth of Offensive Words ” that helpfully repudiates those inaccurate politically correct conclusions.
The study insists that “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.” Here are a few nuggets of wisdom from the Red Team report:
There are a growing number of [U.S. government] documents that suggest we stand in danger of (if we have not already) demonizing Islam and/or associating all Muslims with violence simply by invoking he Islamic identity, or Islamic goals, of a particular extremist group. These assumptions appear to be based upon emotional or political responses to criticism, rather than based on intentional or passive acts of bigotry, as they seem to imply . . . .We must not be afraid to engage in analyzing Islam and its tenets without prejudice when the situation calls for such analysis to take place. When a well-tempered and intellectual analysis of proper Islamic terms can be made, then we should by all means use these terms to accurately describe the phenomenon of violence presently being witnessed. If these are terms being extracted from Islamic sources by terrorists, then the intelligence and diplomatic communities have a responsibility to report where we believe the terrorists have accurately understood the sources.
To say that by merely stating that Islamic-inspired acts of violence is akin to labeling Islam as the enemy is unnecessary and extreme. The fact is our enemies cite the sources of Islam as the foundation of the global jihad. That the results of this campaign are temporally repugnant does not dismiss their existence within the traditions of Islam. A well-laid debate may well have the “extremists” winning on many points about jihad and their American-Muslim detractors would have a tough-go of proving them juridically wrong.
Anticipating the predictable objections likely to come from American Muslims, the study offers the following suggestion:
We should suggest to Muslims who advise the [U.S. Government] on Islamic matters that, as an all-encompassing way of life that binds state and religion into a single unit, it is incumbent upon the Muslim community at large to disprove (to “Violent Extremists”) the martial tenets of Islam to which our enemies turn. The onus is on Muslims to disprove, within their own communities, that those who undertake source-prescribed warfare (jihad) are patently incorrect in their actions in accordance with all norms of social behavior.
One can only hope that the folks over at Foggy Bottom, Homeland Security, and Langley, where common sense is too often an uncommon virtue, pay attention. But I suspect that just may be too much to hope for.
