It’s hard to avoid offending people who detest the United States. No matter how you try, no matter how many sleepless nights you spend listing words and phrases you will never utter in your attempt to be liked by the rest of the world, you will always fall short of your goal.
Take John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s main adviser on counterterrorism. He’s a thoughtful fellow who says that during his years in the Middle East, once serving as a CIA station chief, he watched as “Arab and Muslim attitudes toward the U.S. hardened, often into hatred.” Brennan regrets this evolution, as do we all. So, in what was billed as a major speech this month in Washington, he described how the United States is attempting to build trust and understanding across the Muslim world.
One way, he said, is to temper the language we use. The president does not refer to a “war on terrorism,” he said, “because terrorism is but a tactic — a means to an end, which in al-Qaeda’s case is global domination by an Islamic caliphate.”
“Likewise,” he said, “the president does not describe this as a ‘global war’ ” because that “plays into the misleading and dangerous notion that the U.S. is somehow in conflict with the rest of the world.”
Naturally, the president also wouldn’t dream of referring to “jihadists,” since that might give “these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek.”
No, “we are at war with al-Qaeda” and its “violent extremist allies.”
Never mind that the terms “war on terror” and “global war” are as accurate as ever because the U.S. goal remains, as Brennan himself said, to “destroy” terrorists who “carry out attacks against the United States and U.S. interests around the world.” Never mind, too, that the terrorists clearly represent a militant movement within Islam that uses “jihad” in one of the ways it has been understood for centuries — and that sterilizing our language will never obscure that fact.
Even if Brennan were on to something, where does it end? Those who profess to be alienated by terms such as “jihadists” or “global war” can always point to other words that allegedly offend them. For evidence, look no further than recommendations issued last year by the National Counterterrorism Center and the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in Homeland Security — the latter after “discussions with a broad range of Muslim American community leaders and scholars.”
It turns out that even Brennan’s reference to an “Islamic caliphate” is a no-no, according to a counterterrorism center memo of March 2008. “Caliphate” has “positive connotations for Muslims,” the memo said, while “the best description of what [the terrorists] really want to create is a ‘global totalitarian state.’ ”
The fact that the terrorists say they want to create a caliphate is oddly irrelevant.
Nor does Brennan’s claim that “we are at war with al-Qaeda” and its allies pass the purity test, as defined by the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties office. “Collapsing all terrorist organizations into a single enemy feeds the narrative that al-Qaeda represents Muslims worldwide,” it warns in a January 2008 document.
Even the president’s intention, as described by Brennan, to emphasize the “liberties, prosperity, and common aspirations we share with the world” is an affront to Muslims, according to the same memo. Why? Because the world’s downtrodden supposedly consider “liberty” a “buzzword for American hegemony.” As an alternative to “liberty,” the memo recommends “progress.” Even a Taliban zealot can feel comfortable talking up the “progress” he’s made in keeping girls illiterate.
Earlier this year, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano referred to “man-caused disasters” as a euphemism for terrorism. The term didn’t stick, but it’s a sign of how weird this business of self-censorship can get.
“How you define a problem shapes how you address it,” Brennan declared.
Very true. And it’s precisely why “war on terror,” “global war” and “jihadists” should be part of the official vocabulary.
E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com.
