The Language of Counter-Terrorism: When Message Received is Not Message Intended

Harvard Kennedy School Policy Analysis Exercise

The authors, Harvard Kennedy School students, originally prepared this report for the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Background:

Small changes in Western political language can deny terrorists' power to use our words against us.

Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks frequently manipulate Western leaders' words and use them as tools to rally others to the cause of extremism. While policymakers cannot control how people will perceive what they say, they have tremendous power over what they say. The incredible power of language and the ways in which we characterize our intentions can be an effective tool that policymakers employ to combat terrorism.

The British Government (Her Majesty's Government, or HMG) recognizes the critical role of language as part of its larger arsenal in its counter-terrorism operations. HMG understands that its language can be used against it, to radicalize people - particularly vulnerable members of marginalized communities at home and abroad - to commit acts of violence.

Al Qaeda and others are also eager to use our actions to bolster their narratives. Extremist recruiters wishing to enhance their anti-Western arguments will cite the presence of our troops in Iraq and elsewhere. While our global engagement is indeed a necessary part of our military operations, those seeking to pervert the nature of our efforts will portray our actions and policies in a negative light. Therefore, the ways in which we characterize our actions and policies, the engagements we seek, the laws we create, as well as our responses to specific incidents can do much to contradict the negative narrative others may wish to promote.

HMG's PREVENT strategy forms part of the four-pronged Counter International Terrorism Strategy (CONTEST), that includes harder elements of engagement, protection, and enforcement (at home and with international partners) as well as the recognition that language too has tremendous power. HMG has thus created its PREVENT strategy to address language changes as a part of a broader messaging agenda.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) wants to understand ways to best engage in this "Battle of Ideas" and this paper informs that effort.

The PREVENT strand of HMG's broader counter-terrorism strategy is vitally important because it:

1) addresses the problem of radicalization at its roots

2) is the most proactive in terms of combating the causes of radicalization

3) features long- and short-term programs of action, at home and abroad.

PREVENT offers the opportunity to stop others from using our own words as tools to rally and recruit new extremists.

The U.K.'s top law enforcement officials believe PREVENT deserves equal merit alongside the other strands; they told us PREVENT is the most sensible way to address future radicalization.

Findings:

• Any successful language shift must be "top down" (i.e., originate with Prime Minister/ President).
• Language shifts do not require major policy changes.
• News media cannot be forced to adopt new language, but over time will follow government's lead.
• U.K. is on the right track, but can expect a long wait before seeing concrete results (which will require sophisticated measurement mechanisms to track and to analyze).
• Muslim leaders in the U.K. have noticed and have appreciated the changes so far, but remain skeptical of HMG's intentions and future plans. They are open to PREVENT's concepts so long as they are firmly embedded within wider government - i.e., if they are not abandoned in the wake of another violent incident.
• The Muslim community rejects being addressed as a monolith; targeted approaches are best.
• The U.S. is a critical partner to implement language change.
• Words that appeal to a domestic population may repel an international audience. This erodes Western "soft" and "hard" power and thereby threatens the safety and security of Western troops serving abroad.

Conclusion:

Changing language changes minds. By modifying the words they use to talk about international terrorism, Western leaders begin the process of winning Muslim hearts and minds. The way we talk about terrorism can enhance intellectual debate among elected leaders, news media, and citizens rather than embolden radical forces.

Our findings are based in the latest research about and from members of the Muslim community. Their explanations of the power of language are instructive.

We did not write this report to put words in policymakers' mouths. Yet, we believe officials should examine our findings with regard to the impact of language, as well as its unintended consequences. A senior FCO official told us he is continually "amaz[ed] how a given sentence explodes in the Arab street" in ways unimagined when HMG originally crafted the words. In short, we do not attempt to tell leaders what to say; rather, we offer evidence of how different audiences will hear what they choose to say.

The disconnect between what is said and what is heard can be striking - the impacts, deadly.

About the Policy Analysis Exercise: The Policy Analysis Exercise (PAE) is the capstone of the Harvard Kennedy School Master in Public Policy degree curriculum. The PAE is an analytic and consultative professional product which emanates from the student's work with a real-world client, under the close supervision of a faculty advisor with expertise in the topic area.