General James Mattis - Attacking the al Qaeda "Narrative"

**Shek** · 08-08-2007, 06:40 AM

General James Mattis - Attacking the al Qaeda "Narrative" (SWJ Blog)

Quote:

In his June 2007 State Department E-Journal article, New Paradigms For 21st Century Conflicts, Dr. Dave Kilcullen of General David Petraeus' senior staff in Baghdad called for, among other things, a "New Lexicon" for better defining and more effectively defeating enemies which subscribe to the faith-based mantra of "Death to America, the Great Satan".

In other public statements and in several Small Wars Journal postings, Kilcullen entered very slowly, very prudently into the virtually verboten realm of attacking al Qaeda-style Terrorism in Islamic religious context, rather than in Western secular terms only -- referring to the AQ terrorists as "munafiquun" (hypocrites to authentic, Qur'anic Islam) and pointing out that "they call themselves mujahideen" but are doing barbaric things which are anything but holy.

To which this word warrior says: Spot on! Two small steps for a good man, two giant steps for truth-in-language and truth-in-Islam in the War on al Qaeda-style Terrorism -- a.k.a., Irhabi Murderdom and the AQ Apostasy, as this essay recommends as its most appropriate new names.

But even these two measured Kilcullen attacks on the terrorists' religious legitimacy were in conflict with the State Department's basic rule in such matters. As stated on page 25 of the US National Strategy For Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication, the official advisory is, in part, as follows: Use caution when dealing with faith issues. Government officials should be extremely cautious and, if possible, avoid using religious language, because it can mean different things and can be easily misunderstood...

So broad brush is this avoidance of matters and words religious that the traditional "hearts, minds and souls" frame of reference no longer includes the word "souls."

In respectful contradiction to this "avoid using religious words" directive, this writer has been able to post three recent essays supportive of Dr. Kilcullen's specific acts of re-labeling and of his general call for a "New Lexicon" for expanding this line of counterinsurgency to its full potential.

The latest of these essays, Petraeus Aide's Call for a New Lexicon, offers over a dozen of the Arabic and Islamic words which are necessary frames of reference in any such anti-bin Ladenism Glossary, or Lexicon.

Enter Marine Corps Lieutenant General Jim Mattis

By fortunate circumstance, Lieutenant General Jim Mattis, Commanding General of US Marines Forces Central Command and I Marine Expeditionary Force, and the Marine Corps' premier counterinsurgency (COIN) expert -- has just inserted himself into the religious and/or the pseudo-religious aspects of the current war on al Qaeda's metastasizing cancer of so-called "Jihadi Martyrdom."

As Mattis has charged in a recent North County Times interview, the al Qaeda narrative in this respect is nothing but tyranny in false religious garb. Although he does not list the specific Islamic terms which constitute that pseudo-religious scam, the most likely ingredients of this patently false but highly seductive, self-sanctifying narrative would be bin Ladenism's six-word mantra of so-called

(1) Jihad (holy war) by supposed
(2) mujahideen (holy warriors) and UBL-anointed
(3) shuhada (martyrs) destined for a promised 72-virgins
(4) Jennah (Paradise) as reward for killing us alleged
(5) kuffr (infidels) and, in time, the alleged
(6) Shaitan al-Kabir (the Great Satan, America), as well

Notice, please, that the widespread parroting of this AQ-supportive narrative is much akin to the "useful idiocy" of those in the Cold War who parroted (and who demonized those few who would not join them in parroting) the Soviets' and Fascist Fidel Castro's deceitful narrative of so-called

(1) Wars of National Liberation by alleged
(2) Progressive Movements and supposed
(3) Patriotic Fronts on their way to heaven-on-earth
(4) People's Democracy as a reward for killing all of us
(5) Fascists and for defeating the evils of
(6) American Imperialism

The two situations and the patently false labeling sustaining each are virtually identical. They are both highly representative of the problem which the late, great Senator Pat Moynihan and Dr. Fred Charles Ikle -- Ronald Reagan's Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) - described in the early 1980s as "semantic infiltration."

As Moynihan defined the term, Simply put, semantic infiltration is the process whereby we come to adopt the language of our adversaries in describing political reality. The most totalitarian regimes in the world would call themselves ‘liberation movements.’... [substitute 'Jihadi Martyrs'] ... It is perfectly predictable that they should misuse words to conceal their real nature. But must we aid them in that effort by repeating those words? Worse, do we begin to influence our own perceptions by using them?”

Back then, it was a case of Leninist and Castroite "tyranny in false Liberationist garb." Today, it is the neo-Leninist and fascist-Left equivalent which General Mattis so correctly condemns as being wrapped in "false [Islamic] religious garb." Indeed, both of these monumental scams are deceitful echoes of the militant atheist Vladimir Lenin's cynical postulation that

"We will find our greatest success to the extent that we inculcate Marxism as a kind of religion. Religious men and women are easy to convert and win, and will easily accept our thinking if we wrap it up in a kind of religious terminology."

The question now is what should be done about it -- namely, what is the optimum counter narrative that will begin applying the necessary antidote to the AQ cancer which has spread across the planet? Like any cancer, it is deadly. But like any cancer, it can and must be defeated -- both by destroying individual cells and by a death-to-the-source chemotherapy of worldwide "delegitimization."

As a means of delegitimizing and even demonizing the AQ-style enemy and its Salafi-Wahhabi sponsors, this longtime admirer of General Mattis suggests to him that this ultimate counter-narrative will be one which paints a certifiably apostate and satanic picture of the Terrorists and their impending trip to Eternal Hellfire in Islamic religious words -- both Arabic and English -- along the following lines:

(1) Hirabah (unholy war, "war against society'") and/or Irhab (Terrorism) by ruthless
(2) mufsiduun (evildoers, mortal sinners, corrupters) destined for
(3) Jahannam (Eternal Hellfire) as a proper punishment for their
(4) khawarij (outside the religion) violations of the Qur'an which are so serious, so
(5) shaitaniyah (satanic) and so willfully unrepented as to constitute
(6) al-Murtadd al Qaeda (the AQ Apostasy) against Qur'anic (not "Shari'a") Islam

At this point, these terms are known by all too few of us. But just as we have learned not only the deceitful "Jihadi" words of the AQ narrative but several other Arabic and Islamic terms, as well -- words such as fatwa (religious edict), intifada (insurrection), Allahu Akbar (Allah is Great), fitna (discord), Shari'a (Islamic Law) and Umma (Muslim World), surely we can learn a few more -- especially those which will at long last allow us to begin demonizing rather than continuing to canonize these genocidal killers.

A prudent way to begin such truth-in-labeling in Iraq and elsewhere is to condemn AQ-style atrocities -- i.e., the slaughter of innocents coming from a prayer meeting, or while shopping in the markets or while celebrating a soccer team victory -- not only in such secular terms as "criminal" and "horrendous" and "barbaric" but as being clearly satanic (shaitaniyah), as well.

After all, who delights in these bloody and often genocidal attacks by Muslims on fellow Muslims? Is it the peaceful, compassionate, merciful and just Allah of the Qur'an? Of course not. Or is it, instead, what any truly faithful Muslim knows to be the cruel, the hating, the murderous and the ever-deceitful Satan himself?

But if we never bother to call it satanic, this makes it all the easier for the AQ-style and the al Sadr-style terrorists to mislabel such sinful criminality forever as "in the will of Allah" -- which it is obviously not.

Beginnings of the Proposed New Lexicon

The urgent need for a long-overdue glossary of such terms is twofold. It will be a unique semantic roadmap by which all of us might better understand and to act upon:

First, the deadly implications of the powerful "Jihad by mujahideen destined for Paradise" narrative which has been invented by the Wahhabi-Salafi-UBL conspiracy and which is carelessly parroted and given legitimacy by all too many of us and,

Second, the much needed antitoxin of the "Hirabah by mufsiduun destined for Hellfire" counter narrative set forth above -- with these three terms and few more serving as a startup -- and with perhaps a dozen more to be added. Again, see David Kilcullen's Call for a "New Lexicon"for the current list of words and for those proofs of the Al Qaeda Apostasy which will fully justify their use.

In reviewing these Arabic and Islamic terms, we should not imagine ourselves using them quickly, expertly, loudly or in a fashion of lecturing or pontificating to any audience. But we should at least understand them well enough -- one word at a time if necessary -- to know which ones will serve our purposes and which ones are to be avoided because they are polishing the haloes of the Irhabi Murderdom likes of bin Laden, al-Sadr and Ahmadinejad. [See also TrueSpeak Essays]

Only then can we begin designing strategies, operations and tactics which will, at long last, begin to define these hyena-like suicide mass murderers, rather than America and the West, as the real and everlasting enemies of authentic, Qur'anic Islam.

In that context, as Ronald Reagan said about the Evil Empire, "We (and the God of Abraham) win. They (and their Satan of Eternal Hellfire) lose."

A DC-area attorney, writer, lecturer and anti-Terrorism strategist, Jim Guirard was longtime Chief of Staff to US Senators Allen Ellender and Russell Long. His TrueSpeak Institute and TrueSpeak.org website are devoted to truth-in-language and truth-in-history in public discourse. Phone: 703-768-0957 - E-mail: Justcauses@aol.com

HKDan · 08-08-2007, 08:25 AM

This article does bring up the very true point that the US and the west have not been able to effectively defeat terrorists on the ideological front. Their manipulation of Islam to further their goals has frequently been met with bumbling on the part of the US. Many in the Muslim world today see the war on terror as a war on Islam, that has been one of the biggest successes that terrorists have met with and a real cause for worry. While I wholeheartedly agree with the warnings in the above article that improper use of religous terminology could backfire, I also think that this is an area that the west needs to engage the Muslim world in. Referring to terrorists as martyrs as opposed to "mufsiduun" does have a negative impact. I hope that we are able to see an effective campaign to discredit the misappropriation of Islamic terminology by terrorists. If the day comes that ignorant, illiterate, and impoverished teenagers from Pakistan stop buying the crap about 72 virgins then that would really make a difference in the long term.

S-2 · 08-08-2007, 17:08 PM

Words Have Meaning

Don't know if you saw it, but Shek posted this thread under a post within "Words Have Meaning Pt. II" here at the Staff College. Here's the actual SWJ link-

Words Have Meaning (SWJ Blog)

"If the day comes that ignorant, illiterate, and impoverished teenagers from Pakistan stop buying the crap ... then that would really make a difference in the long term."

Agreed. However, a more immediate goal might begin the re-education of the west and its citizens, particularly the "buzz-word" addicted media.

Cactus · 08-08-2007, 18:23 PM

Hard to tell how useful it will be for the US. The effort needed to carry out this difficult and drawn-out exercise would be justified, for any country, if:

1. Muslims formed a significant portion of the population and the country was trying to wean them off from Middle East and Central Asian dominated narrative of Islamic history and current affairs.

2. The (hijacked/misinterpreted) Islamic zeal was acting independently in generating and sustaining the terror and insurgent campaign at the country.

As we know neither of them are completely true for the United States: Neither the Muslims are a significant portion of US population, nor are all the terror and insurgent campaigns aimed at the US purely sustained by hijacked/misinterpreted Ismalic zeal. So questions should be: How much effort is the US willing to put into a campaign of perhaps limited, peripheral value to the overall war? What are the hidden costs of such a campaign?

**Shek** · 08-08-2007, 21:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cactus

Hard to tell how useful it will be for the US. The effort needed to carry out this difficult and drawn-out exercise would be justified, for any country, if:

1. Muslims formed a significant portion of the population and the country was trying to wean them off from Middle East and Central Asian dominated narrative of Islamic history and current affairs.

2. The (hijacked/misinterpreted) Islamic zeal was acting independently in generating and sustaining the terror and insurgent campaign at the country.

As we know neither of them are completely true for the United States: Neither the Muslims are a significant portion of US population, nor are all the terror and insurgent campaigns aimed at the US purely sustained by hijacked/misinterpreted Ismalic zeal. So questions should be: How much effort is the US willing to put into a campaign of perhaps limited, peripheral value to the overall war? What are the hidden costs of such a campaign?

Cactus,

I have to disagree with you here. AQ does misinterpret the Koran to justify their actions. They are waging an ideological war, one to which our primary response has been military instead of counter-ideological. Our failure to understand the ideology has negatively impacted and hampered our military response. So, as I add up the scorecard here in the first inning, we're using the wrong lineup, and the lineup we're using is also hampered by not fully understanding the opposing team.

I'll give you an example. During my time in Iraq, because some of the Iraqi citizens would refer to the insurgents as mujihadeen, I started using the same terminology. Without realizing it at the time, I was implicity giving credence to the actions of the insurgents, and I might as well have been calling myself a kafir (infidel) at the same time. Pretty hard to win hearts and minds when you're calling yourself the enemy.

The reality is that at the cost of a few hours on just around a dozen terms and the concepts surrounding those terms, we can start to drive the wedge between AQ and Islam and call into question the very heart of their rallying cry. I call it a bargain.

S-2 · 08-08-2007, 21:33 PM

Cactus says,

"How much effort is the US willing to put into a campaign of perhaps limited, peripheral value to the overall war? What are the hidden costs of such a campaign?"

This is a war of ideas, foremost. That said, how much does it cost for a bright guy/gal like you to begin re-orienting your mind by using these words as descriptors? This begins the process of de-legitimizing our enemy's actions and message among our own naive citizenry. Perhaps other modern nations too-

"Just say, 'Irhabists', kids. That's a good start."

I don't expect this to emerge three weeks from now in the social studies textbooks of American high school students. We CAN, however, at WAB. No reason not for all these lovely and perceptive minds, pedantically obsessed with details and nuance of words such as we are.

If we're so lucky as to have this lexicon proposed by Kilcullen find its way into the global muslim discussion, obviously that's all the better.

Our use of the "new lexicon" is nothing more than proper and precise in the theological dialectic of Islam, whether Americans are muslim or otherwise. At worst, the muslim mainstream could not rationally object to this more accurate terminology without having to confront contradictions within their own perspectives. At best, they may remember their own theological history as the defense of Islam against these mufsiduun/muharibuun/munafiquun khawarij irhabists. May Allah (PBUH) reserve a special place in Jahannam for them all, particularly that istihlal swine, OBL.

These terms exist within Islam for a reason. Clearly, they serve as a warning and injunction against those who would, OR ONCE HAVE transgressed its precepts. So it is again. Our use of these terms to describe the enemy, then, is correct within the context of Islam and should be employed at every turn by muslims and non-muslims alike, OR-

Islam simply isn't as its moderate adherants purport- a religion of peace.

You can't have both.

**Shek** · 08-08-2007, 21:46 PM

S-2,

I would add that many Muslims that I encountered in Iraq are not really all that devout, and I have heard Kilcullen describe this as more than just an Iran phenomenom.

Because of the sexy packaging of their message, AQ is able to capitalize greatly on the ignorance of marginally practicing Muslims who may be drawn by AQ's message and grasp onto the fact that they believe it will make them better Muslims and part of something bigger than just themselves. By the mere fact of using language as a tool in this fight, we question the very validity of AQ's message and force those who might be drawn to the sexy Al Sahab productions to really examine the theological credence of what AQ is trying to peddle.

**Parihaka** · 08-08-2007, 21:48 PM

I love this and the previous words have meaning articles. I post them on every forum I know.

**Shek** · 08-08-2007, 22:36 PM

FrontPage Magazine

Quote:

Wage Semantic Warfare to Divide the Enemy
By J. Michael Waller
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/8/2007

The surge in Iraq appears to be working, largely because U.S. forces have taken advantage of divisions among the insurgents and allied with some in order to destroy other Islamist factions.

This is a pretty tough tactic to stomach, because many of our newfound Iraqi “allies” have American blood on their hands. But it just might mark a turning point in the war. By fighting all radical factions, we inadvertently united them against us – not a good idea when some of their most mortal enemies are one another. By working with some Iraqi insurgent groups to wipe out al Qaeda, we will be better positioned to turn our guns against other enemies in due course.

A similar analogy is true in the war of ideas. We can take a blanket approach, as some are doing, by adopting the al Qaeda/Wahhabi narrative and its absolutist definition of terms. We can see enemies in all who believe in jihad, regardless of how they interpret the idea. Or we can be more judicious about which battles we pick. In so doing, we can enlist support, tactical though it may be, from certain of our adversaries.

Uniting our enemies against us is a loser strategy. During World War II, we held our noses and allied with mortal enemy Stalin to defeat Hitler. Then we signed an easy peace with the Germans and dealt with the Soviets in due course. And in resisting and repulsing the USSR, we allied with a rogue’s gallery of tyrants, socialists, Islamists, kleptocrats and assorted nut-jobs – even with other communists. Circumstances often offered us few alternatives.

So it’s natural that we seek fissures within the highly factionalized world of Islam to find tactical allies in the global terrorist battlespace.

That’s why some of us have looked across a broad spectrum of Islamic thought to find pressure points to divide those with the will to kill us from those without, and to marginalize the most extremist elements and help them self-destruct. With help from Arabic linguists and Muslim scholars of various persuasions, we set forth a glossary of Islamic terms of relevance to the war against terrorists.

Does it make sense for us to keep calling the terrorists “holy warriors,” as some do every time they call them mujahideen? Or to imply that their death squad activity is somehow praiseworthy when we call terror an act of jihad holy war? Especially when there are many interpretations of jihad within Islam?

We found terminology that properly implies that our enemies are sadistic sociopaths who must be killed – even terms in Islamic law that can morally obligate faithful Muslims to hunt them down. We found that a broad cross-section of Muslim thought, from modern and western-oriented all the way to some with at least one foot in the extremist camp, agrees on many of these important terms, and not with the terrorists’ definitions.

Yet some observers like Walid Phares attack the idea of semantic warfare. Recently Phares departed from his normally reasoned debate to imply ulterior motives. In a July column, he tried to de-legitimize the ideological warfare work of Jim Guirard. Phares hinted that Guirard was influence-peddling for hidden clients by inaccurately calling him a “lobbyist” and brushing off his essays and memos as “lobbying pieces.” Though he never did say just who was supposedly paying. Those of us who share Guirard’s approach, Phares says, are doing nothing more than pushing a “lobbyist-concocted theory.”

That’s a cheap shot, and a false one at that. Guirard, a former Fulbright scholar, is not a lobbyist. Though he used to be, six or seven years ago, as OpenSources.org reports from the public record. Even then, Guirard lobbied for a Louisiana company on issues relating to the U.S. Army – nothing, as Phares appears to imply, relating to Wahhabis or the Muslim Brotherhood. Guirard has been wordsmithing for decades. Twenty years ago he was waging semantic battles against “liberation theology.” Today he’s doing the same against Islamism.

Phares says that we proponents of using language against the enemy are “representing the views of classical Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood.” Certainly Wahhabi elements and the Muslim Brotherhood are circulating all sorts of disinformation. Lies and other forms of deception are part of the cultural DNA of the Middle East, and are demonstrably part of the ideological war against the United States. But Phares does not substantiate his allegation. He should either back up his claims or retract them.

He does have a good point, though: It is dangerous to view the Muslim Brotherhood, whose “jihadist” strategy stresses power through infiltration, co-optation and subversion more than through violence, as the “good guy” against Islamist terrorism. Ditto for the subversive ideological exports of the House of Saud.

Political, economic and cultural subversion may constitute a far greater strategic danger to the United States and the free world than the fanatical terrorism of al Qaeda. And this is where the Wahhabis and the Muslim Brotherhood have been investing heavily, even among American conservatives. However, as with al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents, it is important for us as citizens to understand the narrative, find pressure points within the languages and cultures, and use them to divide the enemy.

But we won’t approach that understanding if people in our own American camp snipe with sloppy reporting and phony innuendo. Let’s try fighting the war of ideas by reclaiming key concepts from the terrorists and splitting their ideological support base. After a year of serious effort, we can review the results and become smarter defenders of freedom.

J. Michael Waller is the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of International Communication at The Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C. His latest book is Fighting the War of Ideas like a Real War (2007).

S-2 · 08-09-2007, 00:20 AM

"...they believe it will make them better Muslims and part of something bigger than just themselves."

Well, an Islamic caliphate spanning the UMMA might wall-paper a lot of long-term esteem issues.

The desperation to identify with ANYTHING larger than yourself, particularly as heinous as al-Qaeda, suggests a spiritual emptiness that's difficult to fathom.

It helps to explain the moral ascendancy that al-Qaeda holds over moderate muslims in any debate. That ascendancy seems key in al-Qaeda's more ruthless efforts at suppressing the larger debate. Nobody seems surprised when a muslim moderate is killed. We EXPECT it. So do, worse, muslims.

Thank God for the Age of Reason and rationalist philosophy lest we possibly face the same dilemma.

**Parihaka** · 08-09-2007, 00:34 AM

One of the interesting things I've noticed in discussions with those who support the irhabi is that the contempt in which they hold the west is nearly equaled by the contempt for which they hold their own governments and leaders. The edge AQ holds is in convincing them the poverty of their own countries leadership is the responsibility of the west, not their own. Full of nationalistic pride certainly, but a pride firmly rooted in a mythical past rather than the current reality.

HKDan · 08-09-2007, 02:19 AM

How much less painful is it for a person to be able to hold an outside source accountable for their pain and suffering than to have to look inside and see that they bear some responsiblity for it themselves? This isn't just a problem in the Muslim world. Here in China people love to jump on a soapbox and rave about the wrong doings of Japan, when I was in the US I could barely believe some of the things that I heard come out of African American mouths to explain the problems faces by that segment of society. Its always easier to blame someone else. The crazy thing is that in this case using the wrong terminology has actually tacitly approved of that nonsense.

S-2, I absolutely agree with that the realistic goal would be to get Americans and more importantly the American media to change their use of incorrect terms. Then it would be interesting to see if the media really does have the powers that some people seem to think it has.

Cactus · 08-09-2007, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shek

The reality is that at the cost of a few hours on just around a dozen terms and the concepts surrounding those terms, we can start to drive the wedge between AQ and Islam and call into question the very heart of their rallying cry. I call it a bargain.

Shek,

Here is where I disagree: No Iraqi, Afghan, Paks or other Muslim is going to be taking Islamic theological and ideological lessons from a random American soldier, if anything your display of "their knowledge" will only reinforce the already-preached lessons of how insidious and cunning Americans are. Cultures long accustomed to betrayal, treachery and sabotage - as often though ideological sedition as through physical violence - cannot drop centuries of legacy thinking in matter of days, months or even years; it takes two or three generations of trust-building to begin accepting your new-found vocabulary of "a few hours" at its face value. The US military/policy term for it, I believe, is the Long War.

The campaign however does have its value to countries with significant Muslim populations, mind you. The US just isn't one of those countries; its Muslim sub-populations still depend on the narratives emnating from the countries of their origin for inspiration - so until a real US tradition comes forth, this campaign is unnecessary. As for supporting US allies' efforts in such a campaign? Such support must come from the most subtle and discreet sources - definitely not "a few hours" effort.

Apart from the problem of trust and respect, you also have the problem of non-theological forces sustaining and perpetuating Islamic terrorists: from geo-politics and nationalism to ethnicism and plain old criminality. What ideological warfare do you intend to wage against these Machevellian partners in terror? Their cynical vocabulary is older than Islam or even Arabic (the language you intend to fight in)! No trust can exist wthm them, only respect you can draw from them will make you lose ours! Choose again what you value more?

=====

A matter of some possible historical interest to Shek, good armies involved in COIN warfare - unless specifically targeting a whole soceital group - have always opted for the generic terms. Ex. "bandits", "marauders", "cattle-thieves", "plunderers" etc. But do put some research into that matter: Soviets called Afghan insurgents "dushman" thinking it meant "bandit", it simply meant "enemy".

Cactus · 08-09-2007, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-2

Our use of the "new lexicon" is nothing more than proper and precise in the theological dialectic of Islam, whether Americans are muslim or otherwise. At worst, the muslim mainstream could not rationally object to this more accurate terminology without having to confront contradictions within their own perspectives. At best, they may remember their own theological history as the defense of Islam against these mufsiduun/muharibuun/munafiquun khawarij irhabists.

You are right, this is a good advantage to the US efforts that I had overlooked. While I am highly skeptical of this campaign's value as one to win "hearts" (as proposed by Shek), I can certainly see its value as one to force moderate Muslims to show their colors in a painless manner, so to speak.

S-2 · 08-09-2007, 16:01 PM

I understand your point with Shek. Still, if this is a long war-and it most certainly appears to be, then the re-education of our thinking, whether it is an editor at the NYT, a lieutenant on the ground in Kandahar or Mosul, or a poster at this board should begin in any manner that's possible and productive.

Certainly, muslims worldwide would view my efforts to do so initially as clumsy and, worse, disingenuous. However, it's a LONG WAR. Over time, our reshaping of the dialogue through this more precise lexicon is appropriate. Further, doing so can only accelerate Islam's clash with itself and it's internal contradictions.

Most would classify the latter as the missing "reformation".

That opens a whole new can of worms.

08-08-2007, 17:08 PM	#3 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 2,109 Country:	Words Have Meaning- HKDan Reply Words Have Meaning Don't know if you saw it, but Shek posted this thread under a post within "Words Have Meaning Pt. II" here at the Staff College. Here's the actual SWJ link- Words Have Meaning (SWJ Blog) "If the day comes that ignorant, illiterate, and impoverished teenagers from Pakistan stop buying the crap ... then that would really make a difference in the long term." Agreed. However, a more immediate goal might begin the re-education of the west and its citizens, particularly the "buzz-word" addicted media. __________________ "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

08-08-2007, 21:33 PM	#6 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 2,109 Country:	Paraphrasing Nancy- Cactus Reply Cactus says, "How much effort is the US willing to put into a campaign of perhaps limited, peripheral value to the overall war? What are the hidden costs of such a campaign?" This is a war of ideas, foremost. That said, how much does it cost for a bright guy/gal like you to begin re-orienting your mind by using these words as descriptors? This begins the process of de-legitimizing our enemy's actions and message among our own naive citizenry. Perhaps other modern nations too- *"Just say, 'Irhabists', kids. That's a good start."* I don't expect this to emerge three weeks from now in the social studies textbooks of American high school students. We CAN, however, at WAB. No reason not for all these lovely and perceptive minds, pedantically obsessed with details and nuance of words such as we are. If we're so lucky as to have this lexicon proposed by Kilcullen find its way into the global muslim discussion, obviously that's all the better. Our use of the "new lexicon" is nothing more than proper and precise in the theological dialectic of Islam, whether Americans are muslim or otherwise. At worst, the muslim mainstream could not rationally object to this more accurate terminology without having to confront contradictions within their own perspectives. At best, they may remember their own theological history as the defense of Islam against these mufsiduun/muharibuun/munafiquun khawarij irhabists. May Allah (PBUH) reserve a special place in Jahannam for them all, particularly that istihlal swine, OBL. These terms exist within Islam for a reason. Clearly, they serve as a warning and injunction against those who would, OR ONCE HAVE transgressed its precepts. So it is again. Our use of these terms to describe the enemy, then, is correct within the context of Islam and should be employed at every turn by muslims and non-muslims alike, OR- Islam simply isn't as its moderate adherants purport- a religion of peace. You can't have both. Last edited by S-2 : 08-08-2007 at 21:59 PM. Reason: Clarity of purpose

08-08-2007, 21:48 PM	#8 (permalink)
Parihaka Moderator Join Date: 11-10-04 Location: Te Ika a Maui Posts: 9,462 Country:	I love this and the previous words have meaning articles. I post them on every forum I know. __________________ In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

08-09-2007, 00:20 AM	#10 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 2,109 Country:	Shek Reply "...they believe it will make them better Muslims and part of something bigger than just themselves." Well, an Islamic caliphate spanning the UMMA might wall-paper a lot of long-term esteem issues. The desperation to identify with ANYTHING larger than yourself, particularly as heinous as al-Qaeda, suggests a spiritual emptiness that's difficult to fathom. It helps to explain the moral ascendancy that al-Qaeda holds over moderate muslims in any debate. That ascendancy seems key in al-Qaeda's more ruthless efforts at suppressing the larger debate. Nobody seems surprised when a muslim moderate is killed. We EXPECT it. So do, worse, muslims. Thank God for the Age of Reason and rationalist philosophy lest we possibly face the same dilemma.

08-09-2007, 16:01 PM	#15 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 2,109 Country:	Cactus Reply I understand your point with Shek. Still, if this is a long war-and it most certainly appears to be, then the re-education of our thinking, whether it is an editor at the NYT, a lieutenant on the ground in Kandahar or Mosul, or a poster at this board should begin in any manner that's possible and productive. Certainly, muslims worldwide would view my efforts to do so initially as clumsy and, worse, disingenuous. However, it's a LONG WAR. Over time, our reshaping of the dialogue through this more precise lexicon is appropriate. Further, doing so can only accelerate Islam's clash with itself and it's internal contradictions. Most would classify the latter as the missing "reformation". That opens a whole new can of worms.

08-08-2007, 08:25 AM	#2 (permalink)
HKDan Contributor Join Date: 05-23-06 Location: Hong Kong, Shanghai, Hangzhou, wherever the wife drags me Posts: 406 Country:	This article does bring up the very true point that the US and the west have not been able to effectively defeat terrorists on the ideological front. Their manipulation of Islam to further their goals has frequently been met with bumbling on the part of the US. Many in the Muslim world today see the war on terror as a war on Islam, that has been one of the biggest successes that terrorists have met with and a real cause for worry. While I wholeheartedly agree with the warnings in the above article that improper use of religous terminology could backfire, I also think that this is an area that the west needs to engage the Muslim world in. Referring to terrorists as martyrs as opposed to "mufsiduun" does have a negative impact. I hope that we are able to see an effective campaign to discredit the misappropriation of Islamic terminology by terrorists. If the day comes that ignorant, illiterate, and impoverished teenagers from Pakistan stop buying the crap about 72 virgins then that would really make a difference in the long term.

08-08-2007, 18:23 PM	#4 (permalink)
Cactus Contributor Join Date: 08-01-07 Posts: 591	Hard to tell how useful it will be for the US. The effort needed to carry out this difficult and drawn-out exercise would be justified, for any country, if: 1. Muslims formed a significant portion of the population and the country was trying to wean them off from Middle East and Central Asian dominated narrative of Islamic history and current affairs. 2. The (hijacked/misinterpreted) Islamic zeal was acting independently in generating and sustaining the terror and insurgent campaign at the country. As we know neither of them are completely true for the United States: Neither the Muslims are a significant portion of US population, nor are all the terror and insurgent campaigns aimed at the US purely sustained by hijacked/misinterpreted Ismalic zeal. So questions should be: How much effort is the US willing to put into a campaign of perhaps limited, peripheral value to the overall war? What are the hidden costs of such a campaign?

08-08-2007, 21:46 PM	#7 (permalink)
Shek *Military Professional* Moderator Join Date: 02-23-05 Location: Krblachistan Posts: 7,629 Country:	S-2, I would add that many Muslims that I encountered in Iraq are not really all that devout, and I have heard Kilcullen describe this as more than just an Iran phenomenom. Because of the sexy packaging of their message, AQ is able to capitalize greatly on the ignorance of marginally practicing Muslims who may be drawn by AQ's message and grasp onto the fact that they believe it will make them better Muslims and part of something bigger than just themselves. By the mere fact of using language as a tool in this fight, we question the very validity of AQ's message and force those who might be drawn to the sexy Al Sahab productions to really examine the theological credence of what AQ is trying to peddle.

08-09-2007, 00:34 AM	#11 (permalink)
Parihaka Moderator Join Date: 11-10-04 Location: Te Ika a Maui Posts: 9,462 Country:	One of the interesting things I've noticed in discussions with those who support the irhabi is that the contempt in which they hold the west is nearly equaled by the contempt for which they hold their own governments and leaders. The edge AQ holds is in convincing them the poverty of their own countries leadership is the responsibility of the west, not their own. Full of nationalistic pride certainly, but a pride firmly rooted in a mythical past rather than the current reality.

08-09-2007, 02:19 AM	#12 (permalink)
HKDan Contributor Join Date: 05-23-06 Location: Hong Kong, Shanghai, Hangzhou, wherever the wife drags me Posts: 406 Country:	How much less painful is it for a person to be able to hold an outside source accountable for their pain and suffering than to have to look inside and see that they bear some responsiblity for it themselves? This isn't just a problem in the Muslim world. Here in China people love to jump on a soapbox and rave about the wrong doings of Japan, when I was in the US I could barely believe some of the things that I heard come out of African American mouths to explain the problems faces by that segment of society. Its always easier to blame someone else. The crazy thing is that in this case using the wrong terminology has actually tacitly approved of that nonsense. S-2, I absolutely agree with that the realistic goal would be to get Americans and more importantly the American media to change their use of incorrect terms. Then it would be interesting to see if the media really does have the powers that some people seem to think it has.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Many Faces of Al Qaeda	Ray	Current Affairs	2	07-15-2007 12:21 PM
The Strange Case of Mr. Hyde and Dr. Jekyll: General Pervez Musharraf	indianguy4u	South Asian Defense Topics	0	08-29-2005 04:18 AM
Al Qaeda Finances and Funding	Ray	Political Discussions	3	08-03-2005 12:00 PM
More proof of the Saddam al Qaeda Connection	Leader	International Defense Topics	3	05-31-2004 21:22 PM