What’s In a Name?

Is ISIS properly termed (as favored by the Obama Administration) simply as a terrorist group in a world occupied by other organized proponents of terrorism?  Or should the labeling be more specific:  radical Islamic terrorists?

What’s in a name, anyway?  To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, a rose is a rose whatever it is called, right?  So why is it advisable to add distinctive labels?  Isn’t it enough to say terrorism is bad, no matter its roots?

President Obama is determined to adhere to that mantra.  And there is merit in that.  ISIS, whatever it is called, is a small group that, to the extent that it’s identified or associated with Islam, gives that ancient faith a bad name.  That will undoubtedly offend many Muslims who do not distinguish the narrow focus on “radicals” from a broad attack on the followers of Prophet Mohammed. 

The rejoinder is that the U.S. cannot effectively fight a foe if one doesn’t understand it.  “Know the enemy” is a useful mantra as well.

Of course, they can co-exist.  President Obama can resort to public generalities when referring to those who sever the heads of western captives so long as his administration implements policies aimed at the supporters and practitioners of vicious religious zealotry spawned from the pages of the Koran.

[The March issue of The Atlantic magazine demolishes the proposition of the White House that ISIS is masquerading as a Muslim organization.  Its hideous behavior is rooted in a branch of that faith.]

One hopes that behind the scenes, President Obama is orchestrating a coordinated campaign to fight those enemies who are motivated by their brand of religion to kill us; their designs are global.  These particular terrorists are not geographically limited in their targets as are terrorists in the Basque region of Spain, for instance, who are seeking a separate nation.

 

Yet one knows in one’s heart of hearts that such wishes are merely wishful thinking.  Consider the recent comments of a State Department spokeswoman who observed that although killing terrorists is commendable, longer term we must fight terrorism by finding jobs for potential adherents.  In other worlds, “Jihadi John” would stop cutting off heads if the British college graduate were given a nonviolent job. 

[That assessment is simply obtuse.  How can one not recognize the role of religious fanaticism in such conduct?  It has nothing to do with economic motivations.]

So, as is the way of President Obama in general, willful ignorance is the byword.  He and his administration choose to believe what they want.  Radical Islam doesn’t exist.  ISIS’s ranks are filled by frustrated and angry job seekers.  Our strategy, then, for the war on terror, is to provide full employment for Muslim youth.