re: "New State Department lexicon forbids use of the words "jihad" or "jihadist""

Robert at Jihad Watch ("dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts") has some State Dept.-related news.

Quote(s):

"A reliable source has informed me that Condoleeza Rice has approved a new lexicon for State Department usage, absolutely forbidding the use of the terms "jihad" and "jihadist" by any State Department official."

&

"(I)t's ridiculous to think that the U.S. State Department carries any validating authority within the Islamic world to determine what is Islam and what isn't. This would be the first time that unbelievers have set the meaning of Islamic theology for Muslims."

Rather than saying something like "while I can neither confirm nor deny," let me say this: while I've seen this elsewhere in the blogosphere (and showing every sign of being circular reporting), I haven't seen this in any official guidance from the State Dept.

UPDATE: TSB at The Skeptical Bureaucrat ("real bureaucrats never explain acronyms") raises some excellent points.

To wit:

"I see nothing inherently wrong with banning those terms from the lexicon of public diplomacy. I assume that my understanding of the term "Jihad" is different from a Muslim's understanding, and I'm willing to defer to the opinions of people who know far more that I do about trans cultural communication on this topic. Our official discourse about terrorism with target audiences, for whom those terms have specific cultural and linguistic meanings, is far too important not to be conducted in the lexicon that will be most effective. Effective with the audience, that is, if not with the American public."

"(T)here is indeed official Department guidance [I emphasize "guidance," not a ban of any kind] for talking about terrorism with those pesky foreigners. What's more, it says pretty much what Jihad Watch alleges: that officials should avoid using various terms that would have unintended effects, one of those terms is "Jihad," and one of the unintended effects of using it would be to legitimize our enemies actions in the mind of our audience."

&

"Having followed the footprints of this "new lexicon" through the bureaucratic forest, I can tell you that it started with Defense intellectuals, took a side trip through Homeland Security, then went to the National Counterterrorism Center for message development, which messages were then vetted by the interagency Counterterrorism Communications Center [see page 3 of this for background on the CCC], and finally it was boiled down into a Department of State memo that offers a set of non-binding suggestions regarding appropriate language to use with target audiences. That humble memo is presumably the smoking gun that so impressed Jihad Watch's reliable source.The memo is an internet sensation for one reason only: it is not releasable to the public. If it were, it would be a complete bore, since it says nothing that you can't already find in the lengthy public record of Streusand, Guirand, et al."

And thanks for the link.