The debate we must have.

And the bureaucrats who would shut it down.

Some months ago we learned something that should have surprisedno one — at least no one in the least bit familiar with thestultifying intellectual paralysis that afflicts much of theRepublic on the subject of Islam. We learned that various federalagencies, including Homeland Security, are expressly resisting theuse of descriptive terminology — “jihadist,” “Islamic terrorist,”“Islamist,” etc. The reasoning here is plain enough: using thesewords, accordingto one Homeland Security memo, “glamorizes terrorism, imbuesterrorists with religious authority they do not have, and damagesrelations with Muslims around the globe.” It goes on to counselofficials to “draw the conflict lines not between Islam and theWest; but between a dangerous, cult-like network of terrorists andeveryone who is in support of global security and progress.” Thememo also makes a rather audacious assertion: “The fact is thatIslam and secular democracy are fully compatible — in fact, theycan make each other stronger. Senior officials should emphasizethis positive fact.”

Unpacking the assumptions behind all this is a tedious business,but there is one assumption particularly worthy of note. It is theassumption of complete or final knowledge. The writer of this memobelieves that he knows what Islam is, or more importantly, what itis not: and believes it with sufficient confidence as to counselagainst giving even a contrary impression. Islam is notterrorism; there is no natural association between the two.

This is something that has long troubled me. To assert thatIslam is peaceful and terrorism unrelated to it, is no lesssweeping an assertion than its opposite. But men who assert thelatter — that Islam is war and that’s that — are invariably rebukedin the most strident terms. Even men who argue, with greater careand nuance, that while Islam is not war merely, it cannot beoverlooked that Islam contains a unique tradition enjoiningaggressive war — even these men are rarely well-received in politecircles. There is a troubling irony here, which the memo aims tomake policy: It is allowed that a man may pronounce on the truenature of the Islamic religion, so long as he pronounces itpeaceful.

The instinct that produces this situation is probably rooted ingood nature or generosity (though we cannot preclude thepossibility that it is rooted, rather, in cravenness); but it isworth taking note of its effect: namely, the announcement of apublic preference, on a matter of pressing importance, forplatitude over inquiry. “Regarding jihad,” explains the memo, “evenif it is accurate to reference the term, it may not bestrategic.”

This preference for platitude, I submit, must be set aside.Inquiry — tough-minded, rigorous, impassive — is our business. Weface a threat that will not yield to our favored platitudes. Itought not be that, confronted with this threat from within Islam,we will allow no public discussion which tends toward the view moredisagreeable to our good nature. It cannot be that a free peoplewould submit to such a usurpation of the republican discourse. Wegovern ourselves here; the people are sovereign; and no sovereigncan possibly govern wisely, justly, temperately, withoutundertaking the discipline of investigation into the questions andtroubles that confront it.

One of those questions and troubles is the Jihad, whichconfronts us with some very ancient, tired and true methods oftreacherous war — methods which it has put to effective use,before, during and (despite what people constantly tell us) afterSeptember 11.

In sum, the Homeland Security memo (and there are reports ofothers like it in other departments) very unwisely counselsAmerican officials to participate in the shut-down of a debate wedesperately need to have, specifically by removing important labelsand descriptors from the vocabulary. It encourages us to close aquestion we have hardly even opened, a question of vital importancewhich, off at the end, could implicate the very preservation of ourliberty.

It is with some considerable satisfaction, then, that I readthat Representative Pete Hoekstra of Michigan managed to succeed inpassing an amendment to an intelligence bill stating:

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by thisAct may be used to prohibit or discourage the use of the words orphrases “jihadist,” “jihad,” “Islamo-fascism,” “caliphate,”“Islamist,” or “Islamic terrorist” by or within the intelligencecommunity or the Federal Government.

The amendment passed 249 – 180 with 10 abstentions. Jeffrey Imm,writingat The Counterterrorism Blog, in addition to summarizing thematter quite elegantly, provides a list of the Congressmen whovoted against the amendment. Most are Democrats, naturally, butsome (for instance Georgia’s John Barrow and Texas’s Chet Edwards)are conservative Democrats in swing districts. I second Mr. Imm’sconclusion:

Whether or not this amendment to H.R. 5959 ultimatelyis part of an approved bill signed by President Bush, the greatestvalue of this amendment is that it gets most congressionalrepresentatives on the record on their position regarding theefforts of groups to remove any suggestion of Islamic supremacismor Jihad when it comes to “terrorism.”