Winston Churchill once said, “The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.” In the world of global politics, things are seemingly black and white. However, that is not the case when uncovering the truth behind the clever tactics used by politicians and the news media, reflecting the several shades of gray in between. This scenario is especially visible in the world of politics in Western governments. The media often bends the truth behind events to label certain governments or faction groups with different political perspectives as evil or many times as “terrorist organizations”. The term “terrorism” and “global terrorism,” are phrases used by the media and western governments alike to justify military actions. From a neutral standpoint, the terms “terrorism” and “global terrorism” are politically and emotionally charged, but they are also highly ambiguous. From a western standpoint, however, the term “terrorism” allows certain actions performed by western governments deemed politically correct. For example, the War in Afghanistan bluntly labels opposing governments or faction groups as “terrorists.” In order to fully understand how the two terms work, the public must know the history behind them, as well as the truth in how western governments use biased and/or ambiguous language to further their agendas of reaching certain political goals.
The diction western governments choose in their political advancements is always chosen for a specific purpose. This powerful, rhetorical strategy is administered to align the public to think and feel a certain way. An example is the misuse of the word “jihadi” or “jihadist” during post 9/11 times, when both the U.S government and news repeatedly labeled “global terrorists” as “jihadist” or “jihadi”. The U.S government and news media used these particular words to portray the opposing forces as religious extremists. When informing the general American public about religious terms, most will not know what the words truly mean, but they may have preconceived notions of what the definitions could actually be. For many, “jihadi” or “jihadist” is a term for one who will do anything in order to terrorize or make a point to certain groups of people, even if it means to commit suicide for a “holy war”. However, the actual meaning is much different from the one created by society. “Jihad” literally translates to “struggle.” Every Muslim has within themselves a struggle, categorized into a greater and lesser struggle. Greater struggles for a Muslim is are spiritual conflicts: a struggle for self-improvement, against vices such as greed and selfishness. Similarly, lesser struggles are wars in defense of Islam, which can be only waged if the enemy has struck first. During post-9/11 times, the U.S government and media labeled the entire Muslim population of the world as “terrorists,” significantly aiding the U.S in the war against so called “terrorism.” By broadening the scope of the enemy by simply stating that the U.S. military opposed “jihadi” or “jihadist”, it was convenient for the U.S. to unjustly label all Muslims as terrorists.
Aside from current examples, the words themselves have a history of their own. The term “terrorism” was first introduced in the 1790’s during a period known as the Reign of Terror in the French revolution as Terrorisme (In French). It was an onset of violence started by two rival faction groups fighting for the revolution, the Girondins and the Jacobins. The two forces fought for the Revolution, primarily against the old tyrannical leaders of then France.
During the Afghan-Soviet war in the 1970’s, the U.S government fully supported the Afghan people against the Red Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. At the time, the U.S was ready to fight another war against a superpower and political ideology, Communism. This war is also known as the Cold War. The U.S government supported local Afghani freedom fighters called “The Mujahideen” by providing billions of dollars in military support. Ironically, at the onset of the “War on Terror” around thirty years later, the U.S. currently wages war with the same country that accepted financial support. As a result, “The Mujahideen” that were once known as “freedom-fighters” are now labelled as a terrorist organization along with the Taliban. To reiterate the point, the term “terrorism,” is used by western governments to label a certain faction or group of people as the enemy of the state who will commit atrocious crimes against humanity. In this case, however, the term lacks any real legitimacy because of the inconsistency and the significant subjectivity of the term for the interpreter.
The term “terrorism” is surrounded by much controversy and debate in recent times. The terms “terrorism” and “global terrorism” are obscure terms because there are no absolute definitions, reflecting that world issues are indeed not starkly black or white; rather, a multitude of greys. Additionally, in a study done by Jeffrey Record for the U.S Army, there are over 109 different definitions for “terrorism.” However, George W. Bush implemented the term “War on Terror” to describe the deployment of troops against extremist organizations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The choice of words Bush decided to describe the war in Afghanistan was greatly debated on, because of the broadness of the term “War on Terror”. Even Donald Rumsfeld, one of the masterminds of the war in Afghanistan, attempted to persuade Bush in using a less subjective term. In fact, he proposed the phrase “global struggle against violent extremism,” which remains a much more precise description of the who or what the U.S was fighting against. As of now, President Barack Obama’s administration has stopped using the term “War on Terror” to describe the current war in Afghanistan; instead the administration has started using the term ‘overseas contingency operations'. Obama’s administration has realized that the previous administration has misused or abused the language, especially the terms “terrorism” and “jihadi,” in order to gain the upper hand of the people. In addition, Reuters news networks has banned the term “terrorist” because of the term’s subjectivity and biased connotations.
In recent events, Osama Bin Laden, the symbolic leader of Al-Qaeda was found and shot inside his compound in Pakistan. One of the operational leaders of Al Qaeda, Ilyas Kashmiri, was also killed by a U.S drone. Thus the question arises, after the deaths of these leaders, are we still waging war against these so called “terrorists” or are we fighting something else now? The Americans’ sole presence in Afghanistan certainly incites Afghani civilians to rebel against U.S. forces because of the unwanted intrusion of foreigners. If American troops left Afghanistan and surrounding areas, there stands a hope for peace in the contingent areas of Afghanistan.
As mentioned previously, the terms “terrorism” and “global terrorism” have no universal definition. As many say, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” which holds true in every logical sense. The term “terrorism” is simply a tool used by western governments to create an emotional appeal of the public to fight against a faction group or government that the western governments agree on. The U.N and other organizations have contemplated on a collective definition of what terrorism is; however no universally accepted definition has emerged for over 30 years. The news media and western governments practically spoon feed their ‘news’ to “educate” Americans as to what to think and what to believe in. Many students and college educators must fully understand how both governments and news media bias their information to make the public think one way or another, even if it may not be true. In short, the educated should mind the words portrayed in the media and reported by the government, instead of believing everything the government and media releases as the truth.
Works Cited:
Burkeman, Oliver. "Obama Administration Says Goodbye to 'war on Terror'"Guardian.co.uk. Guardian News, 25 Mar. 2009. Web.
Kinsley, Michael. "Defining Terrorism - By Michael Kinsley." Slate Magazine. Slate Magazine, 5 Oct. 2001. Web. 20 July 2011.
"Hamas: Government or Terrorist Organization? : NPR." NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. National Public Radio, 6 Dec. 2006. Web. 20 July 2011.
Ganor, Boaz. DEFINING TERRORISM: IS ONE MAN’S TERRORIST ANOTHER MAN’S FREEDOM FIGHTER? Vol. 3. Herzlia, Israel: Routledge, 2002. 2002. Web.
No comments:
Post a Comment