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.

Hitler and the US Election

I put this video up yesterday because it made me laugh, but then I poked around on YouTube videos that were linked to it, so I thought I'd expand the post.



Apparently, Hillary just acts like Hitler in parody (that is, no one thinks the video above is anything but a joke, but Obama's polices (like nuclear disarmament and health care)are actually equivalent to Hitler:



Though, since the person who created this video clearly cannot spell, s/he can be excused I suppose for not seeming to understand what Hitler actually did. (What with our President setting such a shoddy example both on grammar and on historical analogies of late, who can blame the average citizen?)

Ann Coulter has made more direct claims in recent weeks. In April, she asserted that Barack Obama is "a racist" based on her reading of his autobiography, "Dreams o My Father," which expresses anger at racism, and which she compares to Mein Kampf.

Then there was the brou-ha in February over Tom Sullivan's remarks in response to a caller to his right-wing radio show, who said that Obama's speaking style seemed reminiscent of Hitler:

"I understand that Hitler is hated by, and should be, by most everybody in civilized society. ... But the point being, you must remember something. Adolf Hitler was able to gather a country of people and get them excited about whatever it was that he was talking to them about. He was a very fiery, enigmatic -- I'm not sure -- I mean, he was -- I mean, he really got the people all thrilled..."

I can see why this rankles, but frankly I was more troubled by Keith Olberman's response - he criticized Sullivan for making even the slightest comparison between Obama and Hitler:



But they are comparable in some ways, aren't they? Both human beings. Both mortal. Both male human beings, or Pete's sake - feminist theorists argue this along can explain a little. Both working their way into political inluence against a background of hardship. And yes, both eloquent public speakers who excite an response from their audience through the use of redundance and emotive cliches. I'm willing to say it, as someone who will be pleased to support Obama in November's election, and I think it's silly for left-wing pundits to be so scared by the comparison on these completely irrelevant criteria. Obama is a gifted orator who makes many people share his vision, and that is not a curse, it is what will enable him to exercise leadership and unite the country in precisely the way he promises. Hitler had the same gift, as have many great leaders.

The crucial difference is the use to which such power is put. The idea that liberals should be frightened of or reactionary toward such comparisons is ludicrous.

If the Gods be for us, who be for them?

Taking a brisk constitutional around the blogosphere, I came across this note from the Armchair Generalist; it seems that Hollywood has earmarked 100 Million dollars to produce an epic World of Warcraft movie. To put this in perspective, this is more than the GDP of the world's poorest country, Kiribati, but that's not what has me curious.

What perspective would the movie be shot from? Unlike traditional fantasy war epics, like Lord of the Rings, it's hard to put your finger on the "bad guy" in World of Warcraft. Whether a scowling crc hunter or a comely human sorceress is your best friend or your worst enemy depends, on, well, whether you're a member of the inhuman Horde (orcs and minotaurs and the undead, oh my!) or the more normal (looking) humans, elves, dwarves and gnomes that make up the Alliance.

The word on Wikipedia is that the movie will be shot from the Alliance perspective; potentially alienating the approximately 3.4 million active members of the Horde (for an interesting look at how in-game demographics map to the real world, check out The Daedelus Project).

This is an interesting parallel with the real-world media, which rarely shows both sides of the story; and to a real world still so hung up on national identities that we oft forget that, as Mark Twain wrote in "The War Prayer", when we call upon our God to guide and guard our soldiers in battle, we ask in the same breath that "O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead..."

And who do you suppose they are praying to, in their final hours?

Blizzard Entertainment, which created the game, has sometimes created threats to the game world that have required the Horde and Alliance to, if not work together, then at least to set aside their differences and fight a common foe.

Could this be an option for the producers as they begin the process of writing and refining this script? At this point, about all that can be said with certainty is that there'll be at least one ill-tempered dwarf grumbling in that traditional dwarven Scottish accent.