I’m on long record as being opposed to the “War on Terrorism.” Not that I don’t think that we should be fighting these thugs, but that the war was misnamed from the beginning. Jonathan Rauch explains:

“I think defining who the enemy is is a real problem in this war,” says Mary Habeck, a military historian at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. “If you can’t define who’s a real threat and who’s just exercising free speech, it’s a problem.” As it happens, Habeck is the author of one of three new books that, taken together, suggest the time is right to name the battle. It is a war on jihadism.

Jihadism is not a tactic, like terrorism, or a temperament, like radicalism or extremism. It is not a political pathology like Stalinism, a mental pathology like paranoia, or a social pathology like poverty. Rather, it is a religious ideology, and the religion it is associated with is Islam.

But it is by no means synonymous with Islam, which is much larger and contains many competing elements. Islam can be, and usually is, moderate; Jihadism, with a capital J, is inherently radical. If the Western and secular world’s nearer-term war aim is to stymie the jihadists, its long-term aim must be to discredit Jihadism in the Muslim world.

No single definition prevails, but here is a good one: Jihadism engages in or supports the use of force to expand the rule of Islamic law. In other words, it is violent Islamic imperialism. It stands, as one scholar put it 90 years ago, for “the extension by force of arms of the authority of the Muslim state.”

…”This is a struggle over Islam and who’s going to control Islam,” Habeck says. “If you can’t talk about that, you can’t talk about most of the story.” Specifying that the war is against Jihadism — as distinct from terrorism or Islam (or Islamism, which sounds like “Islam”) — would allow the United States to confront the religious element of the problem without seeming to condemn a whole religion. It would clarify for millions of moderate Muslims that the West’s war aims are anti-jihadist, not militantly secular.

In any case, says Habeck, “people are not buying the administration’s claim that this has nothing to do with Islam.” A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll finds that the proportion of Americans saying that Islam helps stoke violence against non-Muslims has more than doubled (to 33 percent) since January 2002, when 9/11 memories were still vivid. If anything, the tendency of Bush, Blair, and other Western leaders to sweep Jihadism under the rug is counterproductive and fuels public suspicion of those leaders and of Islam itself.

What’s interesting (particularly in light of this post) is that the left is supposedly against imperialism, but they never seemed to mind the imperialism of the Soviets. And now they are either sanguine, or in denial (or even supportive, because it opposes that evil western Amerikkkan imperialism) about Islamic imperialism.

[Via La Dynamist]

[Update a couple minutes later]

I think this is an opportunity for the administration. Since so many whine that the president will never admit to error, he could take some wind out of their sails, while clarifying the nation’s war policy, by admitting that calling it a “War on Terrorism” after 911 was a mistake. This would undercut a lot of the arguments about why we don’t go after the IRA, or other groups, while showing that he can recognize mistakes and rectify them. Renaming it a war on Jihadism would also increase pressure against Iran, which is clearly of a jihadist mindset, and increase justification for preventing them from getting nukes (assuming that any is really needed).

I’ve been meaning to post on this topic, but Tigerhawk beat me to what I was going to say:

Comedy Central has, at least, been forthcoming about its reason for censoring “South Park”:

Comedy Central’s belief in the First Amendment has not wavered, despite the decision not to air an image of Muhammad. Our decision was made not to mute the voices of Trey and Matt or because we value one religion over any other. This decision was based solely on concern for public safety in light of recent world events.

With the power of freedom of speech and expression also comes the obligation to use that power in a responsible way. Much as we wish it weren’t the case, times have changed and, as witnessed by the intense and deadly reaction to the publication of the Danish cartoons, decisions cannot be made in a vacuum without considering what impact they may have on innocent individuals around the globe.

We appreciate the transparency, because it prevents us from having to imagine the reasons Comedy Central might have had. This admission clarifies the issue. Comedy Central censored “South Park” because it feared that Muslim extremists would do violence if it did not.

Now, businesses like Comedy Central and Border’s Books and the major newspapers have every reason to want to avoid violence, so it is understandable that threatened or potential violence motivates them to censor themselves. They are fiduciaries. But they cannot also claim to stand for freedom of speech. That requires courage, and above all the willingness to stare down the threat of violence.

[Emphasis Tigerhawk’s, but I agree]

Yes. The point is that Borders (and Comedy Central) had a perfect right to abide by their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders, in not putting themselves in a position of being sued by someone injured by violent muslims as a result of their book and magazine sales. But when they do that, they forfeit any right to claim to be upholders of free speech. I was upset less by Borders’ actions, than by their unwillingness to be forthright about their reason for them, which would have provided more insight into the enemy that we face.

There are some other interesting points made in the comments to Tigerhawk’s post. How much responsibility does Borders have to protect their own customers, versus the responsibility of the government to do so? Would a plaintiff have a legitimate (and more important, in these days of nonsensical and whimsical jury decisions in civil cases) case that Borders was irresponsible in selling magazines that published cartoons that some violent people would find offensive?

On this holiest day of the Christian calendar, these are useful questions to think about and ask. Will CAIR put up guards outside of Borders to protect freedom of expression in this country? If not, why not? And if not, what does that tell us about where their primary loyalty lies? What part of their name is more important to them, the American (the “A” part of the acronym) or the Islamic (the “I” part)? If the answer is the latter–that it is not allowed to depict Mohammed, let alone insult him–is more important than the right of free expression, this tells us much, I think.

If we are to be cowed against criticism of a religion (uniquely of Islam) by violent threats, but free to have “Piss Christ,” and the Middle Eastern press (hardly a free one) can run cartoons reiterating over and over the blood libel against the Jews and compare them to Nazis, what does that tell us about Islam itself? Can we live with it, not as it purports to be, but (as revealed by this episode) it really is, and maintain our own values?

[Update on Monday morning]

There is some discussion in comments about the First Amendment, and whether or not Borders has a responsibility to enforce it. That’s not what this is about. The First Amendment is an example of what’s being discussed here, not the basis of it. What is at stake is not a constitutional right, but a fundamental principle of the Enlightenment.

Does, or does not, Borders stand for freedom of expression? If they don’t, if they have been cowed by some combination of Islamic and legal threats, then they should forthrightly make a very public and loud statement to that effect, describing exactly what went into their decision. While it’s true that, as one commenter noted, they have been transparent in this, in terms of email explanations, I want them to be more than that. If they purport to support this freedom, I expect them to be incandescent.

Mark Steyn:

Happy Easter. Happy Passover. But, if you’re like the president of Iran and believe in the coming of the “Twelfth Imam,” your happy holiday may be just around the corner, too. President Ahmadinejad, who is said to consider himself the designated deputy of the “hidden Imam,” held a press conference this week — against a backdrop of doves fluttering round an atom and accompanied by dancers in orange decontamination suits doing choreographed uranium-brandishing. It looked like that Bollywood finale of ”The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” where they all pranced around to “This Is The Dawning Of The Age Of Aquarius.” As it happens, although he dresses like Steve Carell’s 40-year-old virgin, the Iranian president is, in fact, a 40-year-old nuclear virgin, and he was holding a press conference to announce he was ready to blow. “Iran,” he said, “has joined the group of countries which have nuclear technology” — i.e., this is the dawning of the age of a scary us. “Our enemies cannot do a damned thing,” he crowed, as an appreciative audience chanted “Death to America!”

The reaction of the international community was swift and ferocious. The White House said that Iran “was moving in the wrong direction.” This may have been a reference to the dancers. A simple Radio City kickline would have been better. The British Foreign Office said it was “not helpful.” This may have been a reference to the doves round the atom.

You know what’s great fun to do if you’re on, say, a flight from Chicago to New York and you’re getting a little bored? Why not play being President Ahmadinejad? Stand up and yell in a loud voice, “I’ve got a bomb!” Next thing you know the air marshal will be telling people, “It’s OK, folks. Nothing to worry about. He hasn’t got a bomb.” And then the second marshal would say, “And even if he did have a bomb it’s highly unlikely he’d ever use it.” And then you threaten to kill the two Jews in row 12 and the stewardess says, “Relax, everyone. That’s just a harmless rhetorical flourish.” And then a group of passengers in rows 4 to 7 point out, “Yes, but it’s entirely reasonable of him to have a bomb given the threatening behavior of the marshals and the cabin crew.”

This seems like good news:

Sheikh Osama Jadaan’s dislike of foreign occupation is nothing compared to his contempt for Iraq’s other intruders – the foreign jihadists who have indiscriminately killed thousands of his countrymen. Now, in what coalition commanders hope will mark a turning of the tide against al-Qaeda in Iraq, he has become the first of the Sunni tribal leaders to declare war on the terrorists to whom, until now, they have given safe haven.

He is well-placed to do so – his al-Karabla tribe lives around the desert city of Al Qaim, near the Syrian border in Anbar province, the Sunni insurgents’ stronghold.

Sheikh Jadaan’s armed followers claim to have arrested and killed 300 would-be jihadis entering from Syria, many bound for service as suicide bombers with Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Think of this next time someone says that George Bush has “destroyed civil liberties” in this country:

“While the outcome of the recent arrests in connection with SMS messaging is not clear yet, what is certain is that SMS jokes have already put some people into serious trouble,” wrote the website Rooz Online.

The clampdown is in line with the authorities’ uncompromising stance on the internet and bloggers. Wary of modern communications as a means of spreading political dissent, Iran is second only to China in the number of websites it filters – using technology made in America.

Large numbers of the nation’s estimated 70,000 to 100,000 bloggers have faced harassment or imprisonment. The regime has acknowledged monitoring text message traffic. It first admitted it had access to text traffic last December when a military plane carrying more than 100 journalists crashed shortly after take-off at Tehran airport.

Here’s an interesting story from SEEBS news:

Although Americans believe they are better informed about Islam than they were five years ago, a new CBS News poll finds fewer than one in five say their impression of the religion is favorable.

OK, class, what’s wrong with the first word of this story?

Anyone, anyone, Bueller?

Yes, it’s the word “although.” Clearly, any sane person would have started off that sentence with the word “Because.”

But “because” the MSM wants to persist in feeding us the CAIR line that “Islam is a religion of peace,” they have to use a nonsensical word to preface the rest of the thought. For the devil’s advocates in the room, please explain to me and my other readers how a better understanding of Islam would compel one to have a more, rather than less, favorable impression of it.

[Update on Thursday morning]

This kind of reminds me of a similar confusion about cause and effect, when the New York Times will start a story, “Despite the recent drop in the crime rate, the prison population is at an all-time high.”

Here’s an interesting story from SEEBS news:

Although Americans believe they are better informed about Islam than they were five years ago, a new CBS News poll finds fewer than one in five say their impression of the religion is favorable.

OK, class, what’s wrong with the first word of this story?

Anyone, anyone, Bueller?

Yes, it’s the word “although.” Clearly, any sane person would have started off that sentence with the word “Because.”

But “because” the MSM wants to persist in feeding us the CAIR line that “Islam is a religion of peace,” they have to use a nonsensical word to preface the rest of the thought. For the devil’s advocates in the room, please explain to me and my other readers how a better understanding of Islam would compel one to have a more, rather than less, favorable impression of it.

[Update on Thursday morning]

This kind of reminds me of a similar confusion about cause and effect, when the New York Times will start a story, “Despite the recent drop in the crime rate, the prison population is at an all-time high.”

Here’s an interesting story from SEEBS news:

Although Americans believe they are better informed about Islam than they were five years ago, a new CBS News poll finds fewer than one in five say their impression of the religion is favorable.

OK, class, what’s wrong with the first word of this story?

Anyone, anyone, Bueller?

Yes, it’s the word “although.” Clearly, any sane person would have started off that sentence with the word “Because.”

But “because” the MSM wants to persist in feeding us the CAIR line that “Islam is a religion of peace,” they have to use a nonsensical word to preface the rest of the thought. For the devil’s advocates in the room, please explain to me and my other readers how a better understanding of Islam would compel one to have a more, rather than less, favorable impression of it.

[Update on Thursday morning]

This kind of reminds me of a similar confusion about cause and effect, when the New York Times will start a story, “Despite the recent drop in the crime rate, the prison population is at an all-time high.”

Melanie Phillips writes about Saddam’s secrets:

Earlier this year, Sada was interrogated about his claims by the American House Intelligence committee, to whom he gave the names of the Iraqi pilots. Subsequently, he says, the Committee went to Iraq and spoke to the pilots. The result, he says, is that a major American investigative and diplomatic effort is now under way to finally locate the missing WMD.

But in Britain, I say, people now firmly believe that there were no WMD and that we were taken to war on a lie. Sada looks utterly flabbergasted.

Melanie Phillips writes about Saddam’s secrets:

Earlier this year, Sada was interrogated about his claims by the American House Intelligence committee, to whom he gave the names of the Iraqi pilots. Subsequently, he says, the Committee went to Iraq and spoke to the pilots. The result, he says, is that a major American investigative and diplomatic effort is now under way to finally locate the missing WMD.

But in Britain, I say, people now firmly believe that there were no WMD and that we were taken to war on a lie. Sada looks utterly flabbergasted.