Why the Term “Radical Islamic Terrorism” Matters

The president was quite emotional recently – something he rarely displays – talking about why using the phrase is not a good idea.  First, Obama noted, it doesn’t matter what one calls terrorist enemies – they are targeted for death regardless of the label affixed to them.  Second, he insisted, calling the foe “radical Islamists” is viewed by the world as indicting an entire religion and offends erstwhile allies who consider themselves “moderate Muslims”.

The first contention is superficially true.  But failing to specify the nature of the enemy confuses would-be allies abroad and, more importantly, the American public.  Whom, after all, are we fighting?  That confusion, understandably, saps support for the effort.  If the President’s view is muddled, how can Americans be expected to fully support a battle against unnamed opponents?

It is an axiom of warfare that knowing one’s enemy is critical to defeating it.  In this case, the foe is guided by a radical ideology rooted in ancient Muslim thought.  Its aim is to kill or intimidate those everywhere who are perceived to stand in the way of the establishment of a world-wide caliphate.  Our enemy is not some amorphous non-creed which engages in random, pointless slaughter.

 

Secondly, it is silly – and insulting to non-radical followers of Islam – to suggest that “the world” cannot – and does not – distinguish between an attack on Radical Islamist Terrorism and the Muslim religion practiced by most believers.  Of course, they do.  Interestingly, President Obama’s failure to make the distinction might even feed the perception - certainly held by some already – that the Muslim faith is the enemy.  Why else won’t America’s top leader single out a segment of self-identified Islamist believers and instead leave the impression that the religion’s entire flock is responsible?

Note:  Another source of confusion is the name of the most prominent proponent of radical Islam.  Is it ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), as most commentators term it, or is it ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) as the Administration insists on calling it?

Why does the White House (including the president) refuse to use the more common label?  For the casual observer, the impression is left that there are two separate terror groups.  Are they both enemies?  Is the White House targeting one but not the other?