The war on terror could be recast as “A Global Struggle for Security and Progress,” according to an internal Department of Homeland Security memo.

Forget such outmoded concepts as liberty, the memo urges. People don’t believe it when the U.S. uses that word anyway.

“Words matter,” begins the memo, a report from the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties consultation with unnamed Muslim “experts” on terminology the government should use when communicating about the global war on terror.

Among other recommendations, the memo (PDF) recommends referring to al-Qaeda as a “death cult” and the broader Muslim community as “mainstream” rather than “moderate,” calling terrorists “terrorists” instead of “jihadists,” etc. These recommendations have actually generated controversy among some neoconservatives who apparently discount the strategic value of choosing words carefully.

But there was no controversy, and indeed, little media mention at all, of the memo’s most striking recommendation: that the global war on terror be renamed to “A Global Struggle for Security and Progress.”

[U.S. Government] officials should emphasize the positive — what we are seeking together. In addition to recognizing the dark vision of of our terrorist enemies and the need to counter their actions with all elements of national power, the USG should also attempt to convince people that this generation needs to unite to promote a common vision for the future. The experts we consulted suggested defining the challenge of our times as “A Global Struggle for Security and Progress.” It is unlikely that this phrase will replace existing monikers such as “the war on terror” or “the long war,” which are more widely used both within and outside the government. Moreover, as a comprehensive descriptor, the phrase may not sufficiently reflect the need to promote public vigilance and rally support for the USG’s anti-terrorism mission. Nevertheless, we understand the experts’ recommendation to be grounded in the realization that we must define what we stand for, in addition to defining what we stand against. More specifically, it may be strategic to emphasize the following:

1. The civilized world is facing a “global” challenge, which transcends geography, culture, and religion;
2. This struggle is for “security,” a global aspiration that all people seek. In particular, Islam emphasizes order and structure. The takfiri ideology is the antithesis of this and in many respects resembles anarchism [sic] — killing wantonly, destroying great buildings and mosques without reason, and bringing chaos and disorder. Moreover, the concept of “security” is one that resonates with mainstream American audiences, as well as with Muslims around the world.
3. This struggle is for “progress,” over which no nation has a monopoly. The experts we consulted debated the word “liberty,” but rejected it because many around the world would discount the term as a buzzword for American hegemony. But all people want to support “progress,” which emphasizes that there is a path for building strong families and prosperity among the current dislocations of globalization and change. And progress is precisely what the terrorists oppose through their violent tactics and through their efforts to impose a totalitarian worldview.

— Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims

If you’re suddenly reminded of Newspeak, you aren’t alone.

It seems to have escaped the authors’ notice that the most formidable totalitarian movement of the 20th century – communism – was, by its own lights, “progressive.” It seems to have escaped their notice that the essence of a totalitarian system is the denial of liberty (often in the name of progress). It seems to have escaped their notice that “progress” is a word that signifies nothing. Exactly what is one progressing to?

It also seems to have escaped their notice that Muslims themselves might aspire to live in conditions of political, economic and social liberty, U.S. “hegemony” notwithstanding. As for defining the current struggle as one for “security,” it might be observed that dictatorial regimes often have solid track records as crime fighters: Mussolini crushed the mafia.

The inanity here is so mind-boggling that it seems almost deliberate, and causes one to wonder just which “American Muslim leaders” the U.S. government is consulting. Last October, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was a guest of honor at a Ramadan event at which, according to one participant, he was publicly thanked by the president of the Islamic Society of North America for “keeping the doors open so we can advise you on how to engage the Muslim world.”

For the record, the ISNA was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the case of the Holy Land Foundation, a U.S.-based charity alleged to have had ties with Hamas. Imagine if the Kennedy administration had consulted with the Workers World Party on strategies to contain the Soviet Union, and you get a sense of what Homeland Security is doing today. — Wall Street Journal

And “liberty” as a buzzword for American hegemony? That’s certainly plausible. Freedom isn’t something that can be exported, it cannot be given, as certain people in the executive branch claim. Liberty must be desired and seized by those who would be free.

The true American dream has been to live freely, in true liberty, as one chooses, without interference from a distant, unresponsive, oppressive government. America certainly is progressing away from this dream, and if that is what “progress” is supposed to mean now, then I want none of it.

(Via Gainesaying)