Obama’s war on the language of terror

Charles Krauthammer has a characteristically excellent column on the weirdness — and mischief – of this Administration’s awkwardly truncated lexicon of terror — “jihadists,” “Islamism,” and “Islamic terrorism” no longer exist.  (And of course, terms such as “Islamo-fascism” are consigned to virtual profanity.)  Bizarrely, the terms are no longer permitted.

I agree with everything Krauthammer says is wrong about such semantic tip-toeing.  But he doesn’t purport to explain how it came about in the first place.  I confess to bewilderment.  I cannot see any rational foreign or domestic policy materially advanced by eliminating certain descriptive words that are commonly used — including by Muslims, and including by the very enemy we purport to be fighting.

As Krauthammer notes, when Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square attacker, pleaded guilty, he explained, “one has to understand where I’m coming from . . . I consider myself a mujahid, a Muslim soldier.”

“Mujahid” simply means “one who wages jihad, or holy war,” i.e., a jihadist.

So we’re not talking about language that has come to mean something denigrating to the referenced group — like “Negro” evolved to become an unacceptable general descriptive within the African-American community.  We’re talking about language that the referenced group itself freely embraces.

The matter is even more bewildering with respect to the relatively neutral descriptive, “Islamic terrorism.”  Granted, this Administration is allergic to calling anything “terrorism,” as opposed to some species of crime.  But terrorism clearly exists.  It is a distinct and identifiable military and cultural phenomenon.  It targets innocent civilians, typically indiscriminately (i.e., the object is simply to kill, to terrorize, regardless whether children, for example, are incidental, or even primary, victims).  It follows that terrorism can be perpetrated by different groups, and adjectives serve the useful purpose of distinguishing these different groups (lest we confuse Islamic terrorism with, say, Tibetan terrorism).

So if “terrorism” is okay — and that word has not yet been banished — what could possibly be wrong with “Islamic terrorism”?

Maybe this Administration is mindful that virtually all 21st century terrorism has been committed in the name of Allah.  Maybe this Administration understands that most Americans, based upon an indisputably rational inductive process, have come to associate “terrorism” — the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent civilians — primarily with a certain radical interpretation of Islam.  And so maybe this Administration wishes to dissociate “terrorism” and “Islam.”

I get that.  After all, terrorism could be committed by non-Islamists.  It hasn’t this century, but it could.  And in our outreach to Muslim countries, our effort to woo Muslim populations to American good will, it may not help that most Americans associate “terrorism” primarily with a certain radical interpretation of Islam.  So (I surmise) if we strive, by linguistic manipulation, to wean Americans away from the association of “terrorism” and “Islamism,” then we can make goodwill headway in Muslim countries.