Through the nearly fifteen years since 9/11, I have constantly argued that it's crucial to name the enemy. As I put it in late 2001: "just as a physician must identify and name a disease before he can treat it, so a strategist must identify and name an enemy before defeating it." In other words, words like terror, evil-doers, and violent extremists won't do. We have to call the enemy Islamists or jihadis.
In response, Barack Obama devoted a large part of a speech on June 14, "Remarks by the President After Counter-ISIL Meeting," to refuting this argument. As one of those who one who originated it, it might be useful for me to respond.
Obama begins with his signature disdain, characterizing criticism of "this administration and me for not using the phrase 'radical Islam'" as "the main contribution" by Republicans to the fight against ISIS (which he calls ISIL). This put-down accomplished, Obama defends himself:
What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? ... Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.
Obama is setting up a strawman here. No one claims that using precise terminology would cause the enemy to change.
Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this?
Yes to both of these. Precise terminology leads to a more accurate discussion which in turn might bring in more allies and certainly allows the government – and more broadly the establishment – to discuss more precisely who the enemy is, allowing for a hugely improved strategy, military and beyond. As we taught at the U.S. Naval War College, strategy follows from policy and policy requires a robust, honest debate.
Since before I was President, I've been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism. As President, I have repeatedly called on our Muslim friends and allies at home and around the world to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world's great religions.
Yes, on rare occasions, Obama has spoken of "jihad," "radical Islam," "jihadists," and "Islamic extremists"; before he became president, he even talked of "the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."
But these are the exceptions; overwhelmingly, he has limited the enemy to "some terrorist organizations" or deemed Islamism out of the faith with such outrageous statements as "We are at war with people who have perverted Islam" or "ISIL is not Islamic." He has even declared that "ISIL's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith."
Do I need to point the absurdity of these statements? The gall of a non-Muslim and non-scholar of Islam in deciding who and what is Islamic? The harm such falsehoods to not just to making policy but to an understanding of the threat?
There has not been a moment in my seven and a half years as President where we have not been able to pursue a strategy because we didn't use the label "radical Islam." Not once has an advisor of mine said, man, if we really use that phrase, we're going to turn this whole thing around. Not once.
Obama belittles his critics by suggesting they believe radical Islam to be magic words. Hardly, but clearly defining the enemy means, for example, going beyond the benighted idea quoted above that Americans are at war with "some terrorist organizations." In fact, terrorists are far less dangerous than the Islamists who work through the system: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the president of Turkey, should worry him far more than Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State's leader.
So, if someone seriously thinks that we don't know who we're fighting, if there's anyone out there who thinks we're confused about who our enemies are, that would come as a surprise to the thousands of terrorists who we've taken off the battlefield.
Again, the enemy is reduced to terrorists. In fact, it's Islamists, a very different concept – and a category perhaps 10,000 times larger.
So, there's no magic to the phrase "radical Islam." It's a political talking point; it's not a strategy.
It's obviously not a strategy; but it is far more than a talking point. It is an accurate description of the enemy, one that Obama, with rare exceptions, is blind to.
if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush and imply that we are at war with an entire religion—then we're doing the terrorists' work for them.
Obama has deceptively switched topics, arguing now against those who say, "Islam is the enemy." But that is not the same camp as those who say, "radical Islam is the enemy."
Now, up until this point, this argument about labels has mostly just been partisan rhetoric. And, sadly, we've all become accustomed to that kind of partisanship, even when it involves the fight against these extremist groups. And that kind of yapping has not prevented folks across government from doing their jobs, from sacrificing and working really hard to protect the American people.
Not for the first time in his presidency, Obama tries to delegitimize a major policy difference as partisan "yapping." Hardly: This is a very serious argument on how to understand the nature of the enemy. It would be comparable to a debate whether Germany or the Nazi movement was the enemy in World War II. That Obama so demeans his critics points to his own small-minded fragility.
But we are now seeing how dangerous this kind of mindset and this kind of thinking can be. We're starting to see where this kind of rhetoric and loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we're fighting, where this can lead us. We now have proposals from the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States to bar all Muslims from emigrating to America.
For a second time, Obama does a slight of hand between Islam and radical Islam, Muslim and Islamist. Yes, Trump does call for a ban on Muslims but we who talk about radical Islam call for a ban on Islamists. For example, Jindal has endorsed barring people from the United States if they follow "radical Islam."
Are we going to start treating all Muslim Americans differently? Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminating against them because of their faith? We've heard these suggestions during the course of this campaign. Do Republican officials actually agree with this?
There three suggestions are quite diverse and should not be lumped together.
- Treat all Muslim Americans differently? No, and no one has suggested this.
- Special surveillance for Muslims? Yes, I called for this in January 2003 and still believe it necessary.
- Discrimination on the basis of faith? Of course not, and no one advocates this.
Obama has sandwiched a reasonable policy between two that are outlandish. Again, he's tricky.
More broadly, this speech is among the worst of his presidency relating to Islam. And that is saying something.
Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2016 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
