From the common sense files: why a leader might use different language
by digby
With all the caterwauling over the president refusing to use the words "Islamic extremism",I thought this common sense comment on CNN by terrorism scholar Bill Braniff at the University of Maryland might be of use to those of us who are trying to explain why this caterwauling is stupid.
Fredricka Whitfield: ISIS ... seems to be the primary target right now but the president omitted the word Islam in terms of references to terror groups. He talked about extremist groups and even though ISIS has the name Islamic in it. How was that received among those who were invited to this [White House extremism] forum, the omission of the word Islam and instead a reference to a more generic term. How was that interpreted?
Bill Braniff: You have to understand that terrorism is a political form of violence. Right it's politics by other means. And therefore, counter-terrorism is inherently political behavior. And I don't mean Democrat Republican politics. It's about legitimacy. And it's about trying to, in this case, get governments to work together to marginalize a non-state actor. If you use the term Islamic extremism, and it's taken out of context, or you're not given the opportunity to explain specifically what you mean, you're referring to Al Queda or ISIL, you may alienate the very nation or communities you want working with you to marginalize these extremist groups , so the administration uses more abstract terms in order not to alienate the allies that it needs for this particular fight. It's a problem, vocabulary and language is a problem whenever you're dealing with highly politicized issues and the administration is trying to use expedient language.
Whitfield: And do you agree with that approach? Is it well received particularly among Arab nations?
Braniff: There's certainly a push-back particularly when American political leaders talk about Muslim extremism and islamic extremism and the concern is that we are using too broad of a brush when we use those terms. There is push-back when we use those terms. So for political purposes I think it's ok to use vocabulary that's going to get you the most effective political outcome. Analysts, strategists those who are in the weeds on these issues need to be more specific and use more specific terms so that we know what we're talking about when we talk about them.
This strikes me as so obvious that nobody should have to say it out loud. The US needs allies in the middle east if ISIS is going to be stopped. Insulting those allies --- even if it isn't meant as an insult toward them --- is counter-productive. Free speech doesn't mean everyone has to say everything.
You and I can use those terms. I have always used Islamic extremism/terrorism as a specific descriptor. The government must speak in ways that advance our interests and sometimes that requires speaking in diplomatic language.
I realize that we swashbuckling Americans believe we don't need no stinkin' diplomacy but that's nonsense. Even the mighty, mighty US cannot solve this problem alone.
Duh.