A US military "Red Team" charged with challenging conventional thinking says that words like "jihad" and "Islamist" are needed in discussing 21st-century terrorism and that federal agencies that avoid the words soft-pedaled the link between religious extremism and violent acts.
"We must reject the notion that Islam and Arabic stand apart as bodies of knowledge that cannot be critiqued or discussed as elements of understanding our enemies in this conflict," said the internal report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.
The report, "Freedom of Speech in Jihad Analysis: Debunking the Myth of Offensive Words," was written by unnamed civilian analysts and contractors for the US Central Command, which is responsible for the Middle East and South Asia. It is thought to be the first official document to challenge those in the government who seek to downplay the role of Islam in inspiring some terrorist violence.
Much more at The Washington Times.
Comments
I largely agree with the commenters above. If we are looking for particular words, I think we should be looking for something along the lines of <b><i>DHAHIYA</i></b> (not sure if I transliterated that correctly) which basically means, <B><I>"victim of extremist manipulation."</I></B> It is both accurate and, in my opinion, less likely to be perceived in a cynical way among our target audiences.
I'm not sure that the _takfiri_ narrative would be particularly effective, especially coming from the USG. One reason is that it's tough for us to understand exactly how "mainstream" the _takfiri_ approach actually is; if a lot of Muslims believe that it's legitimate to declare moderates or liberal Muslims as apostates, then is it a useful argument to try to portray those who do so as a threat to true Islam?
This approach is even more fraught when we consider how appealing the _takfiri_ approach must be to those relatively secular, nationalist insurgents and sympathizers. What if you're an Iraqi or an Afghan who isn't particularly concerned about theology, but wants foreigners out of your country? If someone comes along and tells you that those who support the Americans can be declared an apostate and sentenced to death by Allah, doesn't that seem more attractive to you than engaging in a theological discussion over whether or not a lay Muslim has the legitimate right to declare apostasy in others?
It seems to me that involving ourselves in these theological conversations is yet another way to suggest unwarranted influence over questions that are not ours to answer, thereby stoking rejectionist feelings in the mainstream, even moderate, community.
As a poster on this journal pointed out, the use of words such as Jihad, or any conjugation or glutenation, prepending or addending of the word Islam is misleading and probably unhelpful to the cause. The post was "Well intended but Largely mistaken Attacks on NTIC and DHS".
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/05/well-intended-but-largely-mist/
Why isn't the Takfiri term and narrative pushed more? It's easily understood and appeals to all sides - and places the enemy on the ideological offensive, and instead of alienating Muslims would tend to place many of them in our camp, at least as far as fighting the enemy.
And it's just one more word, after all. If we can learn mujahadeen, jihad and sharia, we can learn one more.