Obama is hurting Muslims by refusing to target ‘radical Islam’

I share the frustration with many who find it remarkable that President Obama spoke yet again to the American people on Monday but refused to identify the enemy as “radical Islam” or another similar term. 

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton also explained on ABC’s “This Week” that she would not say “radical Islam” because it sounds hostile to Muslims. 

{mosads}Our country is hurting. After the Paris attacks and then the San Bernardino shootings, people are clearly overcome with fear.  And because President Obama and his administration are so focused on political correctness and refuse to be clear about who the enemy is, the opposite of their intentions is happening:  Americans are fearful of all Muslims instead of just those who are radical.  

Then you have Donald Trump announce that he would ban all Muslims from coming into the United States.  While his approach is wrong and his language harmful, he is accurately capturing the sentiment many Americans are already feeling.    

Do Obama and Clinton not understand that they are the ones that set up Muslims to take the brunt of this fear by refusing to differentiate them from radical Islamists?

To better understand their reasoning, one can look at experts who share their views and help shape their reasoning. 

The Council on Foreign Relations expert Steven Cook discusses this question on the council’s website in an article What’s In A Name? He makes the case that critics of the Obama administration wrongly want Obama to say: 

 ”My fellow Americans, let me be clear: We are at war with radical Islamic terrorism. I know this is uncomfortable for some, but unless we understand who we are fighting, we cannot defeat them.” 

Cook’s question is then “How exactly would that change the struggle in which we now find ourselves? How would it make the war any easier?” I would make the case that it would change everything.

Clinton is against using that term because it “sounds like we are declaring war against a religion.” Unfortunately she missed the point. We are at war against a religion: not Islam, but radical Islam.  

Imagine what it must feel like for young Muslim Americans right now. If they are shunned or worse in our communities because of our fear, we will actually be doing our enemies a favor by helping to push them towards radicalization. This is not who we are as Americans. 

Let’s contrast our approach to what Indonesia has done, the country with the largest Muslim population of 200 million. Right after the Sept. 11 attacks, they started the International Conference of Islamic Scholars to engage their leaders to discuss the threat of radical Islam. Unlike Obama and Clinton, they understand that having the Muslim community attack this head on was the only way to stop radicalization. 

Indonesia’s largest Muslim organization, “Nahdatul Ulama” with 50 million members, has recently made news launching a global movement to counter extremist ideology and even produced a documentary to contrast moderate and radical Islam. They have also built a “prevention center’ to train Arabic speaking students to combat extremists rhetoric. 

While Indonesia is far from perfect, their efforts to address the threat of radical Islam are having a positive impact on their country’s future. 

Cook says “calling the Islamic State a violent Islamic extremist group seems to me to a meaningless gesture. Radical Islamic terrorists have groups that go by specific names. What is wrong with saying “we are fighting the Islamic State”? Or declaring that “the enemy is al-Qaeda?”

The San Bernardino shooters have not been found to be working directly with an extremist group. They are also, by definition, radical Islamic terrorists. 

Our strategy cannot be just defeating a specific group like ISIS, because if we defeat them but not take on the broader enemy, another radical Islamic group will just rise to take their place. 

According to Rasmussen Reports, only 34 percent of Americans “give Obama good or excellent marks for his response to last week’s mass shooting in San Bernardino.”

Imagine how different it could have been if Obama stood before the American people with moderate Muslims King Abdullah of Jordan and King Mohammed of Morocco by his side as they called out “radical Islamic terrorism.” What if they had also announced a delay of the global warming summit so they could instead meet to fight this apocalyptic ideology that threatens our very existence? 

Domestically, the president should be convening a conference of Islamic scholars to put together a plan to call out those mosques and leaders who are involved in pushing this radical ideology. Obama and these scholars should hold regular press briefings and present the moderate side of Islam to the American people.   

Instead, the president directs senior adviser Valerie Jarrett to speak with religious leaders to talk about combating anti-Muslim sentiment. On Monday, Jarrett tweeted “Spoke with 890+ religious leaders to thank them for speaking up for every American’s right to be free from religious discrimination.” Unfortunately, they are taking the opposite approach, which is leading to further fear and discrimination.  

Internationally, this means calling out the countries that are funding this ideology that is leading to radicalization – Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar and others. This does present complex problems, but continuing to allow them to fund this hate that lead to terrorism is far worse. 

As Indonesia has discovered, attacking “radical Islam” directly is the only way forward. Only when we finally admit this truth will we be able to enact policies that will ensure long-term victory.

Maenza is the executive director of Patriot Voices and chairman of the Board of Hardwired, a global human rights organization. She also was a senior advisor to former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.)