May 28, 2008

by Bret Stephens, Global View, The Wall Street Journal, May 27, 2008

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 purports 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 reportedly 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 - a neutral and broadly accepted term for those who espouse Islam as a political system - 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 support '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 - communism - 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 supporting them. No doubt, too, we need the support 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.