[Mr. Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of"War Made New: Weapons, Warriors and the Making of the Modern World" (Gotham Books).]

The Associated Press is reporting that the U.S. government is moving to kill off jihadists, Islamo-fascists, and mujahedeen. Not the people: the words. Reports from the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center recommend discontinuing the use of such terms, because, as the AP report says, “Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates.”

When we are locked in a struggle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world, there is legitimate cause to be concerned about terminology that may backfire. Some of the verboten terms (e.g., mujahedeen) are surely too laudatory; others (such as “Islamo-fascists”) too offensive to ordinary Muslims who are otherwise unsympathetic to Al Qaeda. But the question is: If we eschew these words, what how are we supposed to refer to our enemies?

The British government, which led the move in this direction, has adopted the phrase “anti-Islamic activity” to refer to what Al Qaeda and its ilk are up to. That doesn’t seem much of an improvement to me: Isn’t it a little presumptuous of non-Muslim governments to decide what activities are “anti-Islamic”?

The U.S. government reports, which are being adopted by the State Department and other agencies, counsel using more anodyne phrases such as “violent extremist” or “terrorist.” But while less likely to give offense, those terms are also so vague as not to be helpful in many contexts. As many critics of the phrase “global war on terror” have pointed out, we are not fighting all terrorists–i.e., we are not mobilizing the resources of the U.S. government to destroy the ETA or the Tamil Tigers. Another possible suggestion is to use “religious extremists” or something similar. But that doesn’t help much either, because it suggests that bin Laden et al. are genuinely religious, and it also doesn’t distinguish them from, say, abortion-clinic bombers.

The term takfiri is both more accurate and less likely to give offense to normal Muslims, insofar as it refers to the practice of bin Laden & Co. of declaring Muslims who disagree with their extreme teachings as apostates. Unfortunately, almost no one in the Western world knows what takfiri means, so it’s not a word likely to come tripping off the tongues of our leaders.

A related quandary is what to call the offensive against these whatchamacallits. The use of “war” may well go the way of “jihadist” on the grounds that it inflames Muslims into thinking we are waging a war against all of them and that it actually elevates people who are simply criminals into semi-legitimate combatants. In 2005, the Rumsfeld Pentagon tried to move away from “war” by coming up with GSAVE–the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism–as its preferred term. That was roundly hooted down and mercifully disappeared when President Bush got wind of it.

I am quite ready to concede that existing terminology–the Long War, the Global Struggle Against Terrorism, Islamic (or Islamist) terrorists, jihadists, and the like–is inadequate. But it’s hard to beat something with nothing. And so far I have not heard any terribly compelling alternatives to replace the terms that, for better or worse, have gained widespread currency since 2001.

omar ibrahim baker - 5/4/2008

Why not call resistance fighters in occupied Palestine by the correct appellation they chose for themselves as resistants to Israeli occupation : mukawama=resisters.
Why not call anti USA fighters in Iraq by their correct and accurately descriptive names: insurgents (sometimes actually used by the less irresponsible media)
Why NOT call anti US&Co fighters in Afghanistan by the name which they chose for themselves and which reflects their, Islamist, doctrinaire provenance and affiliation: Mujjahiddin
Terms hitherto used by US officialdom and media did achieve one and only one purpose: deceiving and misleading the US public!

However should US media need a collective name it only has to use the correct and all embracing appellation of : Anti US imperialism combatants.
That would have the additional benefit of really telling the often misled American public the truth!

Stephen Kislock - 5/2/2008

"Locked in a struggle for the hearts and minds in the Islamic world." Mr. Boot, I take it you joke, The US is after control of the Middle-East Oil and having permanent military bases.

The US has killed so many Iraqi's 1.2 million so far, the woman of Iraq are becoming sucicide bombers to avenge their loved ones.

The term is Occuping Power, not Liberator, words are used by people like you to try and hide the crime of Genocide.

I read your quote on the Falg Officers being paid Propagandist for the DoD, "All this is part and parcel of the daily grind of Washington Journalism". What school gave you your degree?

Mr. Boot, are you part of the Paid Propagandist, or do you really see the Iraq Occupation as a wonderful experiment in demonocracy?

Stephen F. Kislock III