Effective Communication
I found this article interesting and worth some further discussion. I met the article's author here in Windsor recently and he agreed to let me repost it here.
Combating the Islamic Terrorist/Insurgency Threat
By: Carl R. Hospedales
Date: May 21, 2007
Having returned from the Sand Box seven months ago, I have been catching up with the North American Counter Terrorism perception of radical Islamic Terrorism. After spending time in-country, I've gained a Mark One Eye Ball perspective, not just a Signal & Electronic Intelligence one that some would call an armchair quarterback perspective. One thing I have learned is, it doesn't matter how expensive, complex or computerized your intelligence sources are, there is no substitute for the Mark One Eye Ball on-the-ground to give you a good insight into what is going on, on the ground. I am surprised and disappointed that some if not all three major parties involved in combating this threat (Government, CT Professionals and Mass Media ) are still not getting it.
What do I mean? I mean effective communication – one of the fundamental forms of conflict resolution – about how we in the Western, non-Islamic world talk about and discuss the Islamic Terrorism/Insurgency organizations and their threat. One should remember that Islamic Terrorism and Insurgency ideology manipulates religious words and ideas to impose its goals on Muslims, as well as non-Muslims, through violence. By discrediting that ideological belief, one of the first and most essential tasks in addressing the root cause can be accomplished. Moderate Muslim/Islamic voices receive little notice in Western media. In other instances, individuals are fearful to speak out too loudly because of the threat from terrorists/insurgents and their supporters. Western society should encourage Muslim political, religious and social leaders to denounce terrorism, and cooperate in defeating terrorist groups and offer alternatives to terrorism that are real, credible and achievable. How quickly we have forgotten the lessons of the past, and are now making the same old mistakes. Remember the phrase "Hearts & Minds"? The British Special Forces used this phrase in the Counter Insurgency Operations in Malaya (1950-58), and Borneo & Brunei in the 60's (1962-66) with good results.
Counter Insurgency COIN Operation 101
In order to defeat the Terrorist/Insurgency organizations and their operations, one of the main goals is the starvation of their manpower – new recruits and converts that supply to these organizations. This is done by communicating with the Islamic communities that these terrorist organizations draw their power and strength from. And it should be achieved in a language the community and culture understand, not in our own language and culture.
We have allowed the media and the subsequent political bandwagon to have their catch phrases, which have become ingrained in the CT vocabulary and dictionary. In reality, some of these words and phrases help legitimize the Islamic Terrorists and Insurgency actions in the eyes of the Islamic world. Here are some examples.
Jihad: To the Terrorist/Insurgency organizations and the popular Media and Politicians of the day the interpretation and meaning is "Holy War". In fact, the correct literal translation means "Striving". Within the Islamic/Muslim context "Jihad fi sabil illah" translates as "Striving in the path of God". This basic principle of the Islamic religion and the goal of all Muslims is similar to principles of a Christianity's Ten Commandments. An example of this can be a Muslim working in an office or at home conducting their life in God's name. Therefore, for Western society using "Jihad / Jihadist" or any other religious term to describe Terrorists/Insurgency operations and their actions only helps to legitimize an ideology within the Islamic society that CT professionals seek to defeat. Therefore, it should be removed from the CT vocabulary completely.
Mujahideen: "One who participates in Jihad." This designates one's activity as against the enemy of the Islamic Jihad.
Al Qaeda's Caliphate: "Successor" This does not mean a re-establishment of any historical regime, but a Global Totalitarian State. A good example of such a State would be the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Allah: "Arabic for God." This is a name that is not specific to Muslims. Arabic speaking Jews and Christians use this word as well. All three religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, identify God/Allah as the God of Abraham, but they do not share the identical concept of God/Allah.
Words that should be incorporated into the Anti & Counter Terrorist vocabulary and subsequent dictionary are:
Hirabah: Hirabah is derived from the Arabic referring to war/combat means, sinful warfare, or warfare contrary to Islamic Law, and should be applied when describing Terrorist/Insurgency organizations as "Global Hirabah" and NOT "Global Jihad".
Mufsid / Mufsidun: Meaning an evil/corrupt person. The specifics of this denotation of corruption carry enormous weight in most of the Islamic world. So we should describe the Terrorist/Insurgency organizations as "Mufsidun" and not as "Jihadist".
Fitna: Literally means temptation or trial, but has become a reference to the discord and strife amongst Muslims. This best describes what is currently going on in Iraq today.
Fattan: A fattan is a tempter or subversive. Applying this term to Terrorist/Insurgency organisations condemns their activities as divisive and harmful, and also identifies them with movements and individuals with negative reputations in Islamic history, such as the Assassins of Caliph Utham in 656 AD.
How we in Western societies speak and think about Islamic Terrorism/Insurgency will shape its eventual conclusion. Only by using the correct vocabulary, instead of the current incorrect vocabulary popularized by the media/political bandwagon, can we bridge the division of difference between both societies, and thereby divide, weaken, and defeat the Islamic Terrorist/Insurgence Organizations' Threat.
Carl's career spans 26 years in the Military, Aviation, and Law Enforcement Specialist group of occupations. This includes service in the British Armed Forces (1979 - 2001) and currently sits on the Michigan Tactical Officers Association Executive Board as Training Director.
Throughout his career, Carl has placed a special focus on anti-terrorism procedures, training and operations. He has operated in important theatres like, Europe, Balkans, the Middle and Far East, the United States, and Canada.
Carl is a member of the International Counter Terrorism Officers Association, International Association for Counter Terrorism & Security Professionals, International Law Enforcement Educators & Trainers, National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, Canadian General Standard Board on Personal Body Armour Committee, International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, and he is an Associate Member of the Royal Aeronautical Society.
posted by WE Speak at 4:09 a.m.
6 Comments:
Great piece. I wish more people understood the message Mr. Hospedales is trying to get across. Words matter, especially in this sort of a conflict.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Robert Spencer would disagree with your definition of Jihad, as would the Jihadists. It is a very useful bit of confusion on the part of radical Islam to have Westerners think they're just 'striving' for world-wide imposition of Shari'a Law. They, themselves, actually use Jihad in the military sense, to fight the Infidel (that's us).
Here's a quote from Spencer:
From Islamic sources I show that there are indeed many meanings of jihad in Islam, but that radical Muslim theorists like Hasan Al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood) and Abdullah Azzam (Osama bin Laden's intellectual mentor) reject the idea that jihad is a spiritual struggle on the grounds that its attestation in the Islamic sources is weak. Their arguments for jihad as holy war are firmly traditionalist: rooted in the Qur'an, the Hadith, the example of Muhammad, and Islamic history.
You can read more on this at jihadwatch.org
Frank, the point is that if there's a more appropriately loaded word, we should be using it.
If we're trying to win a local population that speaks English, we wouldn't use the term "occupiers," for example, but rather "liberators." I'm not an Arabic scholar, so I can't speak to the shades of meaning discussed, but I'd suggest that someone who knows Arabic a bit better than we do should be engaged to discuss the difference.
And has anyone ever considered that if the bad guys are using a certain word to describe themselves and their war, they've probably chosen it because of the positive connotations? We should be using language with negative ones.
Whether that's the words listed in this article...I don't know. But the concept holds.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I think it's like calling an armed robber a benevolent liberator of excess merchandise. I don't dispute that jihad for example, has many different interpretations, which simply speaks to our need to be even clearer. If moderates use it in one sense and radicals use it in another, it simply adds to our own confusion and misconceptions. Is there a difference whether we call someone from Scotland Scottish or British. I mean, they're all from Great Britian so it makes no difference - right?
Post a Comment
<< Home