Homeland Security Newspeak
May 27, 2008; Page A19
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 memo1 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.
|
