Islam, terror and political correctness

(Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions  expressed are his own)

By Bernd Debusmann
WASHINGTON, (Reuters) – The Islamic terrorists of  the Bush era are gone. They have been replaced by violent  extremists in a purge of the American government’s political  lexicon. Smart move in the propaganda war between al Qaeda and  the West? Or evidence of political correctness taken to  extremes?

Those questions are worth revisiting after the publication  in February of two key documents issued by the administration  of President Barack Obama, the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense  Review (QDR) and the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. Both  deal with what used to be called the Global War on Terror.  Neither uses the words “Muslim” or “Islam.”

The QDR says the United States is at war with al Qaeda and  the Taliban, and speaks of the threat from “non-state actors”  and terrorist networks. The Homeland Security Review identifies  “al Qaeda and global violent extremism” as one of the main  threats to the United States. No word on religion or al Qaeda’s  use of a twisted version of Islam to justify mass murder.

To some, this omission amounts to a dangerous failure to  deal with the root of the problem, evidence of a mind-set  determined to avoid the appearance of anti-Muslim bias even if  that endangers national security. Such charges flew thick and  fast after a Muslim army officer, Major Nidal Malik Hasan  allegedly killed 12 fellow soldiers and an army civilian in a  shooting spree last November at the Fort Hood military base,  shouting “Allahu Akbar” (God is greater) as he opened fire.

There was no mention of Islam, or Hasan’s interpretation of  his faith and his publicly proclaimed anger over America’s wars  in Muslim countries, in the 86-page Army report on the  shooting. In the words of John Lehman, a member of the  commission set up to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on  New York and Washington, the report released in January showed  “how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have  become.”

President Obama’s initial description of the young Nigerian  Muslim who attempted to bring down an airliner over Detroit on  Christmas Day (“an isolated extremist”) also prompted charges  from conservatives that his administration fails to recognize  the link between Islamic radicalism and terrorism.

According to a variety of media reports, the Nigerian, Umar  Farouk Abdulmuttalab, was fitted with his explosives-laden  underwear in Yemen and was in contact there with Anwar  al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born radical cleric and al Qaeda recruiter  who also corresponded by email with Maj. Hasan before the Fort  Hood shooting spree.

So what’s the other side of the story, that it is smart to  use terminology that avoids routinely linking the words Islamic  or Muslim and terrorist? This idea actually dates back to the  final year of the administration of George W. Bush, the man who  handed al Qaeda a potent propaganda weapon five days after the  September 11 attacks.

BUSH’S GIFT TO AL QAEDA

“This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take  awhile,” he said in an unscripted remark. Using the word  “crusade” to describe American retaliation to September 11 was  counter-productive in the extreme. It recalled one of the  darkest chapters in Christian history, the killing of hundreds  of thousands of Muslims by marauding Christian “holy warriors”  in repeated attempts to capture Jerusa-lem. Bush never used the word again but “crusades” has been a  gift that keeps giving for Osama bin Laden and his followers  who say they are waging war against “Jews and crusaders,” a  conflict they still hope to turn into a permanent clash of  civilizations.

“Al Qaeda and its affiliated ideologues … want to create  a homogenous, undifferentiated Islam on whose behalf they speak  and a coherent master narrative which justifies their action,”  Marc Lynch, who heads the Institute for Middle East Studies at  George Washington University, wrote in a recent essay.

Conflating terrorism and Islam and thus creating a mental  connection between the two, in other words, serves al Qaeda’s  cause.

In March 2008, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC),  established by a George W. Bush executive order, issued an  internal set of guidelines on “language issues that may enhance  or detract” from getting America’s message across.

Key points:

** “Don’t Invoke Islam: Although the al Qaeda network  exploits religious sentiments and tries to use religion to  justify its actions, we should treat it as an illegitimate  political organization, both terrorist and criminal.”

** “Don’t Harp on Muslim Identity: Avoid labeling  everything ‘Muslim.’ It reinforces the “U.S. vs Islam”  framework that al Qaeda promotes. Be specific (Egyptian,  Pakistani) and descriptive (South Asian youth, Arab opinion  leaders) where possible.

** “Use the terms ‘violent extremist’ or ‘terrorist.’ Both  are widely understood terms that define our enemies  appropriately and simultaneously deny them any level of  legitimacy.”

At the time, “violent extremist” was a non-binding  suggestion. It has now become the Obama administration’s phrase  of choice. Whether that is tantamount to dangerous political  correctness is still a matter of debate.