Shek

Cactus,

I am not proposing that we preach theology; the new lexicon is simply a challenge to AQ's attempt to force their theology and prevent us from self-defeating language such as my use of mujahadeen or nearly everyone's use of jihadist. Why validate what we don't want to validate?

The lexicon's purpose is to spark some Muslims into questioning the AQ narrative. As far as the skepticism that Muslims may color the remarks with, my reply would be that this is the same language being used by the Iraqi Security Forces themselves. So why not get on board with a train that's already left station?

One last thought is that if we are to understand our enemies (that whole Sun Tzu thingy), then we need to educate our own military and public. It is amazing to see how many Western folks accept only AQ's definition of jihad and use this prism to advocate strategy. Such a starting point treads treacherously close to a path that will lead to a self-fufilling prophecy of Lewis'/Hungtington's "clash of civilizations."

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Cactus

Err... I think we have to agree to diasagree about the validity of this premise for such a campaign. S-2 has however an intriguing alternative premise which makes it a somewhat interesting exercise, so I shall go along with the general campaign. Only time will tell what premise was valid for the campaign.