The Name Game: Terrorism
There has been much controversy surrounding what we call our current wars. What was once the "War on Terror" (short and simple, reflective of President Bush) has morphed into "The International Struggle Against Violent Extremism" (long and incomprehensible, reflective of the current President). The Obama Administration even has difficulty in naming our enemies. "Terrorist" is out, as is "Terrorism". The official White house jargon is "man-made disaster". That terminology seems to equate 9/11 with the BP spill, and could include the freeways in Los Angeles at rush hour. "Muslim extremist" and "Islamic Fascism", two terms in wide use before the new administration took office, are now gone from the lexicon.
The Obama Administration struggles to find wording for how to identify the enemy that we are at war with. If we cannot identify the enemy, it makes it difficult to wage war against them. If we cannot name the collective threat to our way of life, we cannot mobilize the hearts and minds of our own citizens to support defeating our enemies. Without a motivated citizenry, defeating the enemy becomes impossible. The Afghan and Iraqi wars become distant and unimportant to non-military American families, who are now motivated in the act of keeping their families housed and fed.
World War II clearly identified the Nazis and the Japanese Empire as the enemies. We were motivated to defeat those enemies and to bring freedom to people subjugated by them. This was done in an economic time still viewed as more dire than today. Because the enemy was clear and defined, everyone participated in the war effort. Our military fought the battles. The home front supported the military by doing without in support of our troops . Gasoline rationing, victory gardens and recycling scrap metal for reuse by the military were common to all Americans.
Our "War On Terror" was ill-defined by then President Bush. A common criticism of the time was that Americans were not asked to participate in the war effort. We were told that the military would handle it. We were told the government would keep us safe. We were told to go shopping.
The "War On Terror" soon became another in the pile of wars on everything. The War on Drugs, War on Poverty - every time an administration needs to show seriousness about a problem, the sitting President declares war on it. Soon the war becomes another slogan identifying a failed policy.
The Obama Administration rightly moved away from the "War on Terror" terminology. Terror is a tactic, not an enemy. A tactic cannot be defeated. The problem lies in the failure of the Administration coming up with an alternative definition of our enemy and our purpose.
The Administration is also on track with moving away from identifying the enemy as Muslim or Islamic. Though religion has often been a motivator in waging war, and is being used successfully by our enemy, waging religious war is not what America is about. In WWII our enemy was defined in political terms - Nazis, Japanese aggressors. America would not have been as effective or as motivated if we defined the war in terms of defeating the Christians in Germany, or the Shintos in Japan.
We do not have the luxury of naming a country as our enemy. We are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but not against their governments. In the later years of the Bush Administration we had defined the terms of "Muslim extremists" and "Islamic fascism" to identify our enemy. This was accurate - our enemies share a vision of spreading Islam by any means necessary, including force and terror. However, it was no more helpful to our cause than would have been our campaign through Italy in WWII being called the "war against Catholic extremists".
Using Islam in the name is tempting for those who understand that unlike Christianity or Judaism, which allow for a secular society, Islam does not. Judaism accepts converts but generally does not court them. Christianity encourages converts but allows that if a man refuses to accept the Christian faith, his judgment and punishment lies with God, not man. Islam offers and at this point compels conversion and submission to sharia law. Islam is not merely a religion but a legal and political system that is all encompassing. That is how it was designed.
Judaism and Christianity have matured, and some will say, watered down their faiths. We all know of the excesses of the Inquisition and the witch hunts. Judaism in Old Testament times conquered territories and killed all of the residents, man,woman, and child as ordered by God. Both faiths were born in the Middle East, but took the most solid root in Rome and Greece, who had a tradition of individual dignity and autonomy. Over time, both religions adopted and accepted much of the western philosophy. It assimilated. One can argue from a religious viewpoint as to whether this was positive or not, but it has allowed the western model of democracy and freedom to flourish. Even when evil men rise up, the system itself keeps it's equilibrium.
Islam is only beginning it's adoption into western culture, and it is actively fighting assimilation. In the countries of Europe that have accepted large numbers of Muslim immigrants, many of those immigrants continue to live separately, and continuing the customs of their former home. To a lesser degree this is happening in the United States. One cannot know when or if Islam will assimilate as other faiths have, but the answer to that question will take time to answer.
In the meantime, we still need to define our enemy, so that we can determine what we are willing to do and what constitutes victory or success. Otherwise we are just sending our troops in harm's way with no real purpose. That is unacceptable.
We find a unique term defining our enemy being used by Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) who represents a district near Detroit containing a large number of Muslim residents. In conversations with his Muslim constituents, he finds that they take offense at wrapping Muslim or Islam into our definition of the enemy because by and large, they do not consider the Al-Qaeda and other terrorists to be Muslim, regardless of what they say.
They consider them "kufa", an Arabic word generally translated as "infidel". They point to one of the key tenets of Islam as the admonition of the Prophet to not kill other Muslims indiscriminately. This is a shared value with those of us raised in the western tradition. It is one thing to kill an enemy on the battlefield. It is another thing to place a bomb in a place of business or worship and kill the old and infirm, women and children. It is especially heinous to do that to your own people in your own country.
Rep. McCotter has adopted the term "kufa fascist" and that has general acceptance among his Muslim constituents. He explains that the term identifies that while the combatants may claim to be Muslim, they are viewed by their actions as practicing a perversion of their faith. The kufa term, combined with "fascist" - defined in most western countries as advocating a totalitarian form of government - fits the bill pretty well. He is trying to make this the term of first choice in defining our enemy.
Common Sense Dictates
We agree with the Obama Administration on moving away from the vague "War on Terror" and ceasing to use "Muslim" or "Islamic" to define our enemies. We are a pluralistic society, and there are many Muslims who practice their faith here and accept our civil laws. We want to encourage that mindset, and not alienate a sizable portion of the population by lumping them in with those who would do our country harm or try to supplant our system of laws with theirs.
Rep. McCotter reports that "kufa fascist" is acceptable to those law abiding Muslims in his district. The new term may be defined as those people who seek to do our country, residents, and way of life harm in our current war footing. It is a political and societal definition on a par with Nazi (or just fascist) that not only removes religion from the definition but sends the signal that those of the Muslim faith who accept the American way of life hold these enemies in contempt. We think that it is an acceptable term for all sides and will assist Rep. McCotter in promoting it's use.
While we agree with the Obama Administration on the importance of the terminology, we urge President Obama to name and define our mission. Right now we are just providing cannon fodder to these kufa fascists. We are throwing our young men and women in the line of fire for vague goals of reconstruction and establishing government control in an area that may not be conducive to western style democracy. We have been in Afghanistan for better than eight years. It was never a priority for the Bush Administration.
President Obama has made the claim that Afghanistan is the war of necessity. His actions have not met his words. He dithered for months on committing troops to Afghanistan, and came up short from what his General asked for. All that we can see of a plan is the President throwing the guy who stabilized Iraq into Afghanistan and ordering him to fix it. And get out by next June.
The American public does not understand the mission in Afghanistan and that is why support for the war is slipping. President Obama needs to define the war, define the mission, lay out clear marks of what it is we are trying to accomplish there, and define what is success and victory. We suggest he get on that quickly, while he still has some support for his surge. He lost 102 Democrats on the War Funding vote on July 28. If not for the support of all but 12 of the Republican House members our troops would be on a suicide mission. Common Sense dictates that the President act on this urgent matter. Words do matter.
RLB
Categories: National Security, Foreign Affairs
Tags: Barack Obama terrorism war on terror foreign policy
Not on board with you this time. It was radical Islamic terrorists who planned and carried out the fisrt WTC bombing, the 2 embassy bombings, the bombing of the USS Cole, and 9/11. We are at war with Islamic extremists. Calling them by some PC name is a crock. They are what they are. They hate us and we need to be clear in who we are defending ourselves from. I will continue to call them what they are.
Reply to this
I can see the point of redefining the enemy to take Muslim / Islam out of it. Even I have a hard time wrapping my head around being at war with a religion. Your better point is that Obama committed in words to winning in Afghanistan, but he has not followed through in an effective way. I agree entirely that he has not spelled out the mission in a way that the average person can understand and support. That will bite him in the butt at some point. My fear is that he really isn't committed to victory, and is just waiting to throw up his hands and give up. If that is the case then every soldier who has died or has been wounded since this plan was implemented has been wronged. You don't ask someone to die for a cause if you aren't committed to winning it yourself.
Reply to this
With all of this attention being paid to words, nothing of substance has been done in either Afghanistan or at home to make us any safer. Our troops hands are tied with the rules of engagement. Our borders are a joke, north and south with people just coming in undocumented. Airport security is a bunch of meaningless stuff that doesn't make anyone safer. It's not words, or Obama or Bush. No one is taking any of this seriously.
Reply to this
I really agree that equating any religion as a characteristic of our enemy is dangerous. We really don't fight those wars. As close as we come is to aid the victims of genocide. We did that for the jews in WWII, and for the muslims in Kosovo. We don't do crusades. That went out with Richard the Lionhearted.
Reply to this
I gotta agree - we don't wage holy war in this country. That doesn't mean we don't kick ass and name names. If Obama wants to change the names to protect the innocent, so be it. Just let's get the job done and get our boys home.
Reply to this
I have always thought that it was a really bad idea to identify the terrorists by their rellgion. There are extremists in all religions who do horrible acts. Take McVeigh or the fundamentalists who blow up abortion clinics. Would it have been good to identify them primarily as extreme christians?
Reply to this
I always try to be respectful, but this is the most asinine comment I have ever read. Timothy McVeigh was a nutcase. The number of abortion clinic bombings can be counted on your fingers. (Oh, and they were characterized as Christian extremists). On the contrary, every day Islamic exteremists kill innocent people all over the world. Wahabism teaches this as a noble cause, and is financially sponsored by Saudi Arabia. That's where Osama Bin Laden came from. When hate speech or extremist views happen in Christianty or Judaism, it makes the news because it is so rare. In Islam it is so common that it isn't news. You are comparing oranges to very rotten apples. Get educated.
Reply to this
I almost thought that Obama read you. He did an address at the DAV convention in Atlanta to give a speech addressing the wars and vet issues. He did five minutes taking credit for Iraq, and five minutes blaming Bush for Afghanistan and saying that he was taking it seriously. He then listed his "clear benchmarks" of a stable and secure Afghanistan that can defend itself." WTF? What were the clear benchmarks? Then he did the rest on how he was going to take care of the returning vets. He was going to fix the VA like he fixed health care for the rest of us, followed by a bunch of platitudes. Not one specific. God help us. Of course we need to take care of our vets - the best way would be to have a coherent mission before sending our troops into harms way. Maybe allowing them to fight without undue restrictions would help too. The best way to take care of a soldier is to have a plan.
Reply to this
That sounds familiar. Creating a stable and secure country that can defend itself against an insurgency. Not committing enough resources. Restricting the rules of engagement. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, Vietnam.
Reply to this
You can't teach a pig to sing. You only waste your time and annoy the pig. The Afghans have no desire for a "western-style" democracy. They have a history of warlords and strongmen going back past western history. It is called western-style democracy because it is part of our culture and our values. Not everyone has the same values. We might all want a full belly, a warm place to sleep, and better for our children. Still, different cultures define those "better" things in different ways. I say screw it, bring our troops home. Let them fend for themselves. If they hit us again, pound the hell out of them and leave. Then make it clear that will happen to all comers. That will fix the problem.
Reply to this
Hey adman! Welcome back. I'm starting to think twice on Afghanistan, mostly for the reasons that you gave. I remember our original mission was to root out and kill Al-Qaeda and Osama. I was all for that - ht em and hit em hard. I think the phrase was to blow them back into the stone age. Now we're supporting out own puppet strongman. The only control or respect he gets is backed up by the US Military. Somehow the mission changed to making an ally out of a place we never cared about before. Even in the 80's we didn't care about Afghanistan, we were just pushing back at the Soviets. My thinking is that after 9/11 we should have rained down hell on Afghanistan and turned the mission over to special forces to hunt and kill terrorists. Having our soldiers chase them from cave to cave is pointless. I just don't know a good way to pull out without making the terrorists bolder. BTW - they are terrorists. I like that word just fine. Any other term gives them legitimacy they don't deserve.
Reply to this
I like McCotter's term. There's no need to marginalize Muslims who live here and accept our lifestyle. I also think that we made a mistake in the nation building. It's called the Department of Defense, not the Department of Building Client States. Adman has a good point. If we are attacked, we should respond with overwhelming force, and let them clean up afterward. Hopefully they'll think twice about making more trouble. We shouldn't be trying to create little proxy America's everywhere.
Reply to this
You see, if it was Bush in charge there would be some credibility with massaging the terminology. It was clear that had no problem with Muslims who wanted to live in peace with us. He did the first Ramadan dinner in 2001. On the other hand, he pounded the hell out of those who didn't. There was a lot of clarity in the "either you're with us or against us." With Obamathere is no such clarity except that he goes out of his way to make nice to the Muslims - peaceful or not. He's even injected his nose into the Ground Zero mosque. I'm not willing to make the leap of faith that Obama knows what he's doing. Mr. McCotter - you do what you have to do to stay elected. I will continue to call a terrorist a terrorist.
Reply to this
I'm not gonna get into a Bush / Obama comparison. That would be the ultimate race to the bottom. All I can say is the the dumbass was much easier to take than the professor lecturing me on my bigotry. There are a hundred mosques in NYC. No one lives where they are proposing this new mosque. It's a commercial district. Every Muslim has a mosque closer to them than this would be. I think the Imam behind this is trying to plant a victory flag. He said that we we're an accessory in 9/11, that Osama bin Laden was "made in the USA", and refuses to denounce Hamas as a terrorist group. If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck...
Reply to this
I live in midtown, and i am sick over the idea of this mosque getting approval. Frank is right - there is a mosquewithin a few blocks of here, and there are more all of the time. What really galls me is that they approve of this, but refuse to allow a Greek Orthdox (Christian) church that was destroyed on 9-11 to rebuild. The reason is that it is a commercial zone. What hypocritical hogwash.
Reply to this
Amazing how this "outreach" has had such blowback. How tone deaf do you have to be to understand that the idea of a mosque, this close to 9/11 (and 9 years is not a lot of time), and located in the building that the landing gear of the plane crashed through wouldn't be received well??? This is such a stupid idea that even Chuck Schumer is keeping his mouth shut. I don't care if they want to build a mosque - just not there.
Reply to this
this isn't a question of denying religious rights. It's just what's appropriate. I'm sure the Japanese wouldn't be all that thrilled with America opening up a cultural center in Hiroshima. It's just in bad taste.
Reply to this
I know it's a tough position to be in, but it's just a mosque, and there are others in the neighborhood. No terrorism, no plots, just Muslims worshiping. I really don't see the problem here.
Reply to this
The problem is not in the idea of a mosque. There is a mosque about the same dstance away from Ground Zero that has been operating since the early 90s. The problem is with who is organizing this mosque and what it will represent. Rauf, the Imam, will not denounce terror and has said repetedly that we brought Sept 11 on ourselves. Gov. Patterson has offered to swap him some state land of equal value to build on and Rauf refuses to discuss it. This mosque is not an outreach, it is a raised middle finger to us, and a monument to their martyrs. That's the problem.
Reply to this
Fine information, thanks to the author. This work is really useful and significant.
Reply to this
Everything on this site is utterley correct! In addition you've made an fantastic article once again! Your style of writing on this site is impeccable, I really enjoy the post. I check your blog on a regular basis and love the fact its popular and has frequent visitors Excellent blog thanks for sharing
Reply to this