Murdered blogger Steven Vincent: ‘Words and ideas matter’ in Iraq liberation

Steven Vincent, the journalist and blogger found shot to death Tuesday [Aug. 2] in Basra, Iraq, had this to say about the words used to describe the liberation and democratization of Iraq:

Words matter. Words convey moral clarity. Without moral clarity, we will not succeed in Iraq. That is why the terms the press uses to cover this conflict are so vital. For example, take the word “guerillas.” As you noted, mainstream media sources like the New York Times often use the terms “insurgents” or “guerillas” to describe the Sunni Triangle gunmen, as if these murderous thugs represented a traditional national liberation movement. But when the Times reports on similar groups of masked reactionary killers operating in Latin American countries, they utilize the phrase “paramilitary death squads.”

Same murderers, different designations. Yet of the two, “insurgents” and especially “guerillas” has a claim on our sympathies that “paramilitaries” lacks. This is not semantics: imagine if the media routinely called the Sunni Triangle gunmen “right wing paramilitary death squads.” Not only would the description be more accurate, but it would offer the American public a clear idea of the enemy in Iraq. And that, in turn, would bolster public attitudes toward the war.

Supporters of the conflict in Iraq bear much blame for allowing the terminology - and, by extension, the narrative - of events to slip from our grasp and into the hands of the anti-war camp. Words and ideas matter. Instead of saying that the Coalition “invaded” Iraq and “occupies” it today, we could more precisely claim that the allies liberated the country and are currently reconstructing it. More than cosmetic changes, these definitions reflect the nobility of our effort in Iraq, and steal rhetorical ammunition from the left.

The most despicable misuse of terminology, however, occurs when Leftists call the Saddamites and foreign jihadists “the resistance” What an example of moral inversion! For the fact is, paramilitary death squads are attacking the Iraqi people. And those who oppose the killers - the Iraqi police and National Guardsmen, members of the Allawi government, people like Nour - they are the “resistance.” They are preventing Islamofascists from seizing Iraq, they are resisting evil men from turning the entire nation into a mass slaughterhouse like we saw in re-liberated Falluja. Anyone who cares about success in our struggle against Islamofascism, or upholds principles of moral clarity and lucid thought - should combat such Orwellian distortions of our language.

(Vincent had even more to say on the language of the totalitarians.)

The ‘anti-war’ word. Vincent saw the war first hand. He knew what he was talking about. And I’d bet he wouldn’t disagree if I added one more complaint about dangerously loose language. It boils down to this: Supporters of the military action to liberate Iraq are not “pro-war,” and opponents are not “anti-war.” The truth is almost exactly the opposite.

Supporters of liberation are the real “anti-war” activists. Saddam Hussein started the war in 1990 and reopened it with his repeated violations of the 1991 cease-fire. Meanwhile, Saddam’s domestic repression was a bloody war of its own. Meanwhile, the Islamist fanatics have been waging a parallel war of aggression, repression and terror.

Supporters of Iraq’s liberation aren’t for war. We’re for ending the war(s) by defeating the totalitarians who would kill us rather than let us be free. Yes, we’re for the fight until freedom’s victory. And we’re for freedom’s victory because a free world is the best chance for a lasting peace. That’s not for war.

Totalitarian wars ignored. Those who generally call themselves “anti-war” have never been anti-war. They’ve been willing to let totalitarians imprison and murder by the hundreds of thousands – to make war – as long as the victims are far away.

The “anti-war” philosophy is to passively let totalitarians make war, and to complain only when the democracies step in to defend the defenseless and free the oppressed. Under the “anti-war” rules, the totalitarian wars could go on forever, forever unchallenged unless, perhaps, the fascists marched into “anti-war” neighborhoods.

On the other hand, under the liberal, pro-liberation principles, the totalitarians would be stopped early, dictatorships would become democracies, and war would be no more.

So who is anti-war? I wish Vincent were here to give us his best answer.

Frank Warner

SEE ALSO: After Juan Cole’s insult to murdered journalist Steven Vincent, Vincent’s wife responds.