Words, Words and More Words--About Words

Question 1. A jihadist is not a jihadist if--
A.) he is dead
B.) the fatwa authorizing his jihad is cancelled by clerical authority
C.) the clicker on his vest/vehicle/roadside bomb fails
D.) the National Counterterrorism Center and Department of Homeland Security
pronounce that the word must never be used except in a peaceful way
E.) none of the above.

Question 2. An Islamist is--
A.) an adherent of Islam
B.) a student of the foundations and tenets of Islam
C.) a political radical seeking the imposition of Islamic law on a people
D.) a believer in the necessity, desirability and inevitability of the global caliphate
E.) a figment of the fevered minds of Islamophobes

Question 3. A moderate Muslim is--
A.) a member of the silent Islamic majority who may or may not support terror
B.) a Muslim who rises in indignant opposition to those who pilfer Islam in the
cause of killing women, children and other civilians
C.) the target audience for US public diplomacy
D.) a Muslim the US must not risk offending lest he join the black hats
E,) nonexistent given the radical political nature of Islam from a Western
perspective

Question 4. Which statements are true
A.) Muslim terrorist is an oxymoron
B.) Jihad refers to peaceful internal struggle
C.) Jihad refers to peaceful struggle against human enemies such as poverty and
racism
D.) Calling suicide bombers "jihadists" or "mujahideen" confers legitimacy on
them
E.) According to the US Government, all of the above.

(If you answered 1-E, 2-E, 3-C and 4-E you are a US Government approved Sensitive Person. You have also had your visa to the Republic of Reality cancelled.)

The United States is not engaged in a Great Global War on Terror. We are haphazardly skirmishing with a specific and easily defined transnational group including both non-governmental actors and States which espouse the supremacy of Islam and pursue a political agenda which is hoped will lead to the establishment of a global caliphate and the universal application of Islamic law and principles.

What's hard to understand in that?

Islamism and jihadism have been around a long while. Since the purported receipt of the Word From On High by the Prophet Mohammad. Nothing hard to grasp there.

Nothing inherently wrong with the idea either. Islamists are welcome to have their beliefs. They are welcome to hope, pray and even argue that their desired end goal will come to fruition.

Islamists and their more action oriented kin, the jihadist, must not be permitted to use force, the threat of force or subversion to impose their vision upon individuals and nations that do not wish to live in an Islamic Paradise. (Or go there post-mortem.)

Drawing and defending that line is or should be the focus of the United States and kindred spirit countries. It is no more and certainly no less than what we did with respect to expansionist oriented, Soviet Union powered Communism during the Cold War.

Yes, the Geek readily acknowledges that the US government engaged in infuriating excesses of thought policing during the Cold War. As a historian he can cite chapter, verse and line about those excesses both foreign and domestic.

The Geek is quite well aware that the US often committed the fatal blunder of confusing short-term order under a repressive dictator with long term stability within a foreign nation. He knows the US often, all-too-often tried to put the brakes on change within another society and culture with long-term disastrous results for both them and us.

Recognising all of this it is still necessary to state unequivocally that during the Cold War the US understood the nature and character of the threat--the enemy, if you'll permit the Geek to use a harsh, blunt word.

More, the US understood the nature, character and appeal of its values, beliefs and institutions--warts, scars and all. We knew ourselves as we were and showed it to the world even if many were unwilling or unable to accept us as we presented ourselves.

The knowledge of ourselves and our adversaries served us well. It was a (perhaps the) key to understanding the final outcome of the Cold War.

Now it appears that we have thrown all that aside. Our government is unwilling or unable to define who the enemy is and where the threat originates.

Worse, our government--at least the current administration--seems to be gripless regarding just who or what we are and how best to present that to the world. Particularly that portion of the world covered by the word, Muslim.

The effort by the National Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Homeland Security joined by the State Department to become the Word Police has been given wide currency over the Internet. There is no need for the Geek to summarize the NCTC-DHS dictat.

Wrong headed attempts to assuage the ever-so-sensitive feelings of some American resident Muslims might be warm and fuzzy, but they are ultimately counterproductive in a world filled with cold sharpies.

The last time the US government tried such an exercise in the softening of terms was in 1948 and 1949 when members of the Truman Administration referred to the Chinese Communists of Mao as being "agrarian reformers."

Islamists and jihadists wear the label with pride. They know what they want. They know who they are. There is no reason for the government not to use the same terms.

If some non-Islamist, non-jihadist Muslims take unwarranted offense, that is their problem and the government need take no responsibility for it. There are more than enough multi-cultural oriented academics to wring their hands and view with dismay. The government and the rest of us don't have to join in the circle of tears.

More importantly, the US would be best served not by tender ministration to easily bruised sensitivity but by a robust declaration of what we stand for and why we stand for it.

Unlike the death worshiping Islamists/jihadists, the people of the United States are life oriented, life-affirming. We see both the risks and, more, the opportunities of life. We pursue life and all it has to offer with very few of us casting glances at some presumed pit of hell waiting to swallow our souls.

Unlike fear ridden, eager-to-submit to Higher Authority Islamists and jihadists, We the People are willing, even eager, to stand tall and proud, meeting authority on our terms--not its. We can admit our collective mistakes, the "sins" of our ancestors, rectify the wrongs and seek a better collective future.

Yes, we may take our individualism too far. Yes, we may be a messy people given to too much consumption (at least in the eyes of some). But, in our boisterous and often too exploitative way, we have been living up to that long ago vision of John Winthrop of establishing a "shining city."

Instead of playing the role of the politically correct English Department, the US government should speak of our adversaries bluntly and directly, calling them what they are. More, We the People best demand of the next administration that it get on with the task of letting all those "moderate" Muslims of the Islamic Silent Majority know just what we are and why we are that way.

Perhaps, just maybe, then the Silent Muslim Majority will find its collective voice and drown the demands of the Islamist for more martyrdom in a chorus of "No!"