Labeling the Enemy

P.W. Singer and Elina Noor have an excellent short op-ed in this morning's NY Times, criticizing the USG's appropriation of the term "jihadist" to describe Islamic extremists, including those engaged in terror attacks:

"IMAGINE if Franklin D. Roosevelt had taken to calling Adolf Hitler the 'leader of the National Socialist Aryan patriots' or dubbed Japanese soldiers fighting in World War II as the 'defenders of Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.'

To describe the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese Army in terms that incorporated their own propaganda would have been self-defeating. Unfortunately, that is what many American policymakers have been doing by calling terrorists 'jihadists' or 'jihadis.'"

Singer and Noor make their case on three grounds:

"First, to call a terrorist a 'jihadist' or 'jihadi' effectively puts any campaign against terrorism into the framework of an existential battle between the West and Islam...

Second, these words locate the ideological battle exactly where the extremists want it to be. The terms of discussion are no longer about the murder of innocents in terrorist acts; they are about theology.

Third, when American leaders use this language it sends a confusing message to the Muslim world... Why, after all, would we call our enemy a 'holy warrior'?"

What do they propose instead? Singer and Noor present a novel proposal:

"If we want to say what we mean, what terms better describe Qaeda members and other violent extremists? “Muharib” or the more colloquial “hirabi” or “hirabist” would be good places to start. “Hirabah,” the base word, is a term for barbarism or piracy. Unlike “jihad,” which grants honor, “hirabah” brings condemnation; it involves unlawful violence and disorder."

This is an excellent idea, and I shall henceforth use this terminology on this blog unless anyone who understands Arabic etymology better than I do convinces me Singer and Noor are wrong. It should be added, however that the term jihadi probably has an appropriate use in US diplomatic rhetoric, and this would be to refer to individuals who, in the name of Islam, make efforts and even sacrifices to uphold basic standards of humane conduct and social justice in their societies. As Singer and Noor allude, this comprises not only many Muslim moderates but a great swath of Muslims who have spoken out against terrorism, risked their lives to promote human rights in their societies, or assisted the US in reconstructing Iraq, for example.

Unfortunately Singer and Noor then back away from this excellent idea, claiming in their last paragraph:

"Of course, it’s probably best not to engage in these nuances at all. Which is why American leaders would do best to call terrorists by their rightful name: “terrorists.” The label may seem passé, but terrorism is an internationally recognized word for an internationally recognized crime."

Not to my understanding. Terrorism is certainly internationally used, but it has never been defined through any consensus process in international law, and both scholars and diplomats use it inconsistently. This is why the crime is ironically absent from the statute of the International Criminal Court, for example.

Crime and What Punishment?

One of the big stories in the world this past week, until Clinton opened her mouth, was the spate of apologies issued by the US Government (first by Brig. Gen. Jeffery W. Hammond and then by President Bush )for a US soldier's use of a Qu'ran for target practice in Iraq.

At least there is some general consensus that apology was an appropriate response. The NY Times reports a general bipartisan consensus the act was wrong, and the apology the right thing to do. It's also the smart thing to do: social science evidence documents the importance of formal apologies for smoothing over relations between aggrieved groups, and reproducing collective standards of appropriate behavior. Some of it is documented in this book.

So an apology was in order. But was it be enough? Seems not. Interestingly, the dance of contrition seemed to be more of a news-story than the shooting itself. The USG has emphasized the apology but carefully protected the identity of the offending soldier and whisked him(her?) out of the country.

Iraqis didn't ask for a mere apology and Afghani protesters don't seem satisfied with one. The Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars made a very simple request: that the soldier receive the "most severe punishment possible." It's worth considering what that would be.

Though it is often said (and I seem to have read)that desecrating religious objects is a crime under international law, I've had a hard time identifying the clause in the laws of war that would actually cover this type of behavior. Even if it does, it would not be considered a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions, so the US isn't actually required under treaty law to prosecute the individual in question.

So the question becomes: how will Soldier X be tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice? I am not well versed in military law (Cleitus?) but it strikes me that since Lieutenant William Calley got only three years of house arrest, and a quick pardon, for butchering 500 civilians, and since the US has decided not to prosecute those responsible for the deaths of that the "most severe punishment possible" under US law for shooting a Koran might not be as severe as Iraqis hope.