War against Jihadism

With a hat-tip to Alan Hirsh for finding this in an article by...

George Weigel called Faith, Reason, And The War Against Jihadism: A Call To Action. ..

* Lesson one: The great human questions, including the great questions of public life, are ultimately theological
* Lesson two: To speak of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as the “three Abrahamic faiths,” the “three religions of the Book” or the “three monotheisms” obscures rather than illuminates. These familiar descriptions ought to be retired
* Lesson three: Jihadism is the enemy in the multi-front war that has been declared on us
* Lesson four: Jihadism has a complex intellectual history, the chief points of which must be grasped in order to understand the nature of the threat it poses to the west
* Lesson five: Jihadists read history and politics through the prism of distinctive theological convictions, not through the lens of western assumptions about the progress of dynamic of history
* Lesson six: It is not “Islamophobic” to note the historical connection between conquest and Muslim expansion, or between contemporary jihadism and terrorism. Truth-telling is the essential prerequisite to genuine interreligious dialogue, which can only be based on the claims of reason.
* Lesson seven: The war against jihadism is a contest for the human future that will endure for generations
* Lesson eight: Genuine realism in foreign policy takes wickedness seriously, yet avoids premature closure in it’s thinking about the possibilities of positive change in world politics
* Lesson nine: In the war against Jihadism, the political objective in the middle East and throughout the Islamic world is the evolution of responsible and responsive government, which will take different forms given different historical and cultural circumstances
* Lesson ten: in the war against global Jihadism, deterrence strategies unlikely to be effective, because it is almost impossible to deter those who are committed to their own martyrdom
* Lesson eleven: Cultural self-confidence is indispensable to victory in the long-term struggle against Jihadism
* Lesson twelve: Islamist salami tactics (also known as the salami-slice strategy, a divide and conquer process of threats and alliances used to overcome opposition) must be resisted, for small concessions in the name of a false idea of tolerance inevitably lead to further concessions, and into further erosions of liberty and security
* Lesson thirteen: We cannot, and will not, deserve victory (much less achieve it) if we continue to finance those who attack us, therefore, a program to defund jihadism by developing alternatives to petroleum based transportation fuels is a crucial component of the current struggle
* Lesson fourteen: Victory in the war against global jihadism requires a new domestic political coalition that is proof against the confusions caused by the Unhinged Left and the Unhinged Right
* Lesson fifteen: There is no escape from US leadership

At least it gets past the impossible 'war on terrorism': which will never be one this side of Kingdom Come; it's a methodology not an enemy! But let's get away from the war metaphor shall we? It's bound to cause trouble.How about 'repurposing' Jihadis? Or, how about this from left-field: doing good to those who despitefully use us (after all these ones are responding in kind to perceived despiteful use, arguably)? So While I agree with the first two (and think them insightful), I'm concerned that the war metaphor is a spoiler. There can be no victory: only reconciliation (this is true for any conflict except genocidal ones), so let's not frame it that way. If we are to win anything it is hearts and minds: any other objective is bringing down the roof on ourselves. That said, I'd go with 6, 8, 10 & 13.

Speaking peace

Well, I believe them but I'm not sure the right-wing press, eager for an easy reason to run a PC-language riff, will be convinced. (And see here for an example of the way the editorial riffs can develop out of nearly nothing* -assuming the report itself is not one!). I believe them because, looking at the actual phrases mentioned, I do think that they have taken on board some of the better insights of those working in peace and reconciliation:

"This is not about political correctness, but effectiveness - evidence shows that people stop listening if they think you are attacking them."

I salute and celebrate the toning down of the martial rhetoric. I fear it may be too late: it may now come over as mere verbal change. On the other hand by eliding the Islamic reference, is it setting up to fail by not really recognising that it is a variant of Islamic discourse (allorhetorical variation?) that is being used to ideologically undergird the particular form of terrorism being countered.

*We have recently heard of just one instance in the way that one newspaper reported our daughter's recent hit-and-run: not only was 10 years added to her age, but an extra and untrue detail was added; that she was returning home after partying with friends. I guess the latter was in there because "that's what young women always do". She was in fact walking the dog and coming back home after meeting her boyfriend off his bus from work.

Islamists?Islamofascists? What is the right term?

Timothy Garton Ash is probably right to we concerned about the connotative effects of using the word 'islam' in compound words and phrases referring to certain terrorists. He highlights the IRA and the community it was/is set within for comparison, helpfully. So, "'Al-Qaida' won't do as the functional equivalent of 'the IRA' - not on its own anyway. We need a wider term to describe the kind of violent extremists who perpetrated the London and Madrid bombings. Counter-terrorism experts talk carefully of 'al-Qaida-inspired' violence, but that's too complicated for everyday use, as are alternative suggestions such as 'violent Muslim extremists' or 'modern Islamic militancy'. We need a simpler shorthand."
Helooks as the current contender 'islamofascist' and 'islamist' (the latter is the one I have tended to go for, admittedly). The former has difficulties on the hook up with statehood currently. The latter, however, does tend to be used by 'serious analysts'. However, while most of the terrorists we are concerned with here are indeed Islamists, not all Islamists are terrorists.

So what would he propose? "The best answer I have found so far is "jihadists", especially in the form "jihadist extremists" or "jihadist terrorists". I know that "jihad" can also be construed as peaceful spiritual struggle, but the Muslim opinion-leaders that I have consulted seem ready to accept this usage. It places a clear demarcation line between ordinary Muslims, and even non-violent political Islamists, on the one hand, and the dealers in death on the other - yet it does not obscure the connection to their religion. In fact, it makes it clearer than either of the alternative terms. Jihad, holy war, is precisely what the suicide bombers tell us - in their pre-murder valedictory messages - that they were proudly engaged upon."

So I'm probably going to adopt this usage, which is one I have used on this blog from time to time. I'm inclined towards the form 'jihadi[st] terrorist' to be clearer that I recognise some usage of the term 'jihad' to be functionally equivalent to the way that many Christians may use terms such as 'spiritual warfare' or 'fighting the world, sin and the devil'.
I may have to alter my labels though
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | In identifying those trying to kill us, we should choose our words carefully: