The Importance of Language in Efforts to Thwart and Eradicate Terrorism

Yesterday, I wrote about the importance of how we choose to term our efforts to thwart and eradicate international terrorism.

Therein, it was suggested that while our response needs to be intelligent, forceful, and comprehensive, it was very important that our language not make the issue out to be larger than it is, or larger than it has to be. In particular, I spoke of the importance of marginalizing what is at heart a cultural patholology, participated in by fanatical fringe elements.

The reason was that it is very easy to make this a larger cultural or even religious issue with many, blur the lines between anti-Americanism and outright terrorism, and thus inadvertently and of course erroneously render what we would clearly consider to be "terroristic activities" more mainstream in the eyes of more people internationally.

President Bush, once again handling the issue poorly, along with the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group, helped to illustrate this point by engaging in precisely what needs to be avoided:

U.S. Muslim groups criticized President George W. Bush on Thursday for calling a foiled plot to blow up airplanes part of a "war with Islamic fascists," saying the term could inflame anti-Muslim tensions....

"We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter-productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group.

Agreed. It only tends to inflame Muslims, and make those of Islamic faith feel like their religion is being attacked. In this way, such language tends to counterproductively undermine the idea that the terrorist groups are a fringe fanatatical element acting outside of both Islamic and Christian principles.

In a similar way, the overuse of the term "war," even if less obvious, can have a similar effect. The reason is that war, outside of those engaged on one particular side (say, for example, the U.S.) usually has international connotations of "two sides to the story." While one side may be right, and one wrong, the term tends to be less associated with fanatical extremism, and less associated with miniscule splinter groups, than, say what we are really combatting; namely, fanatical anti-Western Islamic extremists.

Some criticize even the phrase "fanatical anti-Western Islamic Extremists." And to the extent that the President of the United States addresses the nation and world, there is no real purpose in him couching the issue in these terms. In assessing policy, however, addressing the situation more definitely and candidly, in a broader context, allows for more precise strategy evaluation.

In addition, the two phrases are also fundamentally different.

The phrase "fanatical anti-Western Islamic Extremists," does tie this terrorism activity to the fringe element of the othewise very popular religion practiced by those few terrorist extremists who would do grave harm to innocents in the Western World. But more importantly, it also clearly disginguishes it from the vast majority.

The ill-advised word "Islamic Fascists" may not. Consider, here in the U.S.A., if, God forbid, patholotical extremists were to bomb an abortion clinic, murdering doctors, assistants, and patients alike. Is there a difference, to the average Christian, upon hearing the term, "Christian Fascists yesterday bombed a building, murdering dozens." Versus "fanatical anti-abortion Christian Extremists yesterday..." The latter certainly seems like a far less damning indictment of the religion per se, rather than an isolation of a very fringe, extreme element.

But again, the more important distinction here is between an analysts need to precisely assess the situation, and our larger message to the world as conveyed by our leaders on a diplomatic front.

update: It has been well noted how influential Vice President Dick Cheney is in the present administration. Many claim that the Vice President has as much if not more real influence than the President. It has also been noted how the Vice President believes that the media does not cover things in the way he would like to see things covered, and that he believes that "Fox" is the lone major "news" station that is "fair and balanced"(to use both his and Fox's term). The Vice President has also requested that when he travel, all applicable hotel TV's be pre tuned to the Fox "news" station. Even the TV in the White House briefing room, traditionally turned to CNN has been switched to Fox.

In my analysis of Fox news yesterday on this issue, I mainly focused on egregious distortions of facts repeatedly engaged in by the so called Fox "analysts" and hosts, that went routinely uncorrected, and that persistently mischaracterized both the democratic party, and democrats in general. But what was also noted was how often the term fascism, or nazism, was used in reference to terrorists.

While watching and assessing an hour plus of straight coverage on Fox, there were two other consistent trends noted. The first was mainly concentrated on the Sean Hannity Show. (Fox calls this show the "Hannity and Colmes show," but this is a misnomer. Hannity runs the show, Colmes speaks rarely. When he does, he raises obvious and well known points in "opposition" to the constant right wing themes being trumpeted, that often get immediately contradicted, and that essentiallly do little more than give the show the faux appearance of "balance."

Ironically, this first trend consisted of Hannity's near ubiquitous use of Karl Rove's grossly misapplied phrase that "democrats" are "deeply, profoundly, and consistently" wrong on terrorism. He applied it numerous times to democrats, slipping it in, along with other right wing talking points, at almost every opportunity. It was somewhat reminiscent of Fox's tendency to try and slip in how the word "balance" or "balanced" at every possible moment, while almost constantly being the exact opposite.

The second theme of Fox, and again, more prevalent on Hannity's show but a reasonably consistent theme throughout, consisted of comparing the terrorist movement with the rise of nazism. As Hannity put it, "We are watching the rise of Nazism before our eyes."

No, we are not. And the main reason is the same reason why we have to treat the terrorism problem a lot differently than a conventional war. It consists of sovereignless, borderless, almost amorphous extremist groups, with no other binding national or other ideology save their own -- and the backing of no formal army, but with the ability to pathologically wreak havoc in a world rife with WMD capable materials. It is a very different phenomenon. To treat, combat, thwart and eradicate it intelligently, requires recognizing it as such.

But in watching "Fox," the Channel that Vice President Cheney has called "balanced," it is interesting to note how President Bush's statements often seem to echo what is stated on Fox. Or perhaps it is the other way around. Either way, the relationship, for a station that masquerades as a news station on politics and policy, is fairly profound.