Carlin Romano wonders why Western political leaders and media prefer 'purely operational talk' after terrorist acts, language which is 'ethically neutral, merely strategic in tone and content'. Why don't they use, as part of the fight against terrorism, 'sterner moral judgment, forcefully expressed'? He suggests five reasons: political correctness (not wanting to give offence); striving for an appearance of calm rationality; not getting too emotional; not wanting to make terrorists angrier; and so as not to weaken the power of a more condemnatory language. Romano explains why he finds these reasons 'less than compelling'.
Such purely operational language cedes the language of moral judgement to the likes of Ayman al-Zawahri. Instead, he says, we should speak more robustly as part of an effort to educate potential supporters of terrorist politics:
Instead of hearing moral praise and encouragement for terrorism from jihadists, which then gets mixed in their minds with the nonjudgmental, tactical talk of Western officials and media, they'd have to absorb a steady stream of insults of terrorists' intelligence, morality, decency, and reasoning. Young Muslims would have to get used to hearing jihadist heroes described as savages, scum, and uncivilized losers, along with the reasons why. It would intellectually force them, far more than they are forced today, to choose between two visions of the world.You can see what Romano means by 'sterner' (and there's more where that came from). Merely to read his proposal brings home how rare a language of forthright public condemnation of terrorist politics now is. (Via A&L Daily.)We should not minimize the thirst for respect among terrorists and their potential sympathizers...