To ‘radical Islam’ or not? Counterterrorism demands not-too-radical terms

What’s in a name, when you’re naming the enemy?

President Trump told CNN during campaign season that he thought “Islam hates us” and vowed in his inaugural address to “eradicate” all “radical Islamic terrorism.” New National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster reportedly began his tenure by explaining to his team that “radical Islamic terrorism” is not helpful terminology; he’s previously said terror groups use a “perverted interpretation” of Islam.

{mosads}Former CIA Director John Brennan lauded McMaster for not using “bumper sticker terms” that do “more harm than good.” In his day, President Obama called it “violent extremism.” Former Secretary of State John Kerry tried to get away from using “Islamic” in conjunction with ISIS, once suggesting they simply be called “the world’s most evil terrorist group.”

Similar to the tussle over ISIS vs. ISIL vs. the pejorative Daesh, who’s right? Which terms convey the true nature of the terror war while not being counterproductive?

McMaster and others who steer clear of the term “radical Islam” argue that it isn’t helpful because it feeds into terrorists’ narrative of a war between Islam and the West, thus giving recruiters a rhetorical boost and dampening national security cooperation with the greater Muslim community in stopping terrorists.

To be clear, McMaster is not denying that a radical, virulent interpretation of Islam exists. And you can’t divorce religion from the crime, because in the perpetrator’s mind it’s a driving motive. The terrorist’s interpretation of Islam is mixed with other motives as well; this can include a propensity for violence as evidenced by a criminal history that in lone jihadists has often included domestic violence.

In many ways, ISIS operates like an ordinary street gang, fishing for recruits among the vulnerable and offering them family, power and purpose. Al-Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki was one of the masters at tapping into the directionless, the disturbed and the disenfranchised. There’s always something brewing below the surface of religious observance that ultimately pushes these recruits to kill in the name of Allah.

ISIS considers their Islam not radical, but purist. Their articles spew broad definitions of apostate Muslims and justifications for killing brethren who don’t fall into ideological line, including a U.S. election guide declaring any Muslim voter one “whose blood is obligatory to spill unless he repents.”

Al-Qaeda, meanwhile, has proven to be a bigger danger because of the effort they’ve put into pulling their Islam toward mainstream views and vice versa. They criticize ISIS for killing Muslims and put a focus on naming and shaming mainstream and liberal Islamic clerics in the West, blaming the shepherds instead of the sheep in order to woo the latter over to their flock.

The Pakistani Taliban and Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai read the same Quran, but the latter interpreted the text as a call to education while the former used it to justify her death warrant.

There is a radical interpretation of Islam being practiced by terror groups in concert with often areligious geopolitical aims and the tactics of a crime syndicate. This explains why they’ve been content to look the other way with recruits who don’t exactly act pious in their personal lives as long as they get the dirty work done in their professional lives. They dismiss un-Islamic behavior as wily operatives just trying to seamlessly blend with the disbelievers.

When you leave the Islam out of Islamic terrorism, you can miss certain clerics or institutions offering inspiration or direction to would-be terrorists that propels them down a violent path. When you make terrorism all about Islam, you risk distrust and lose collaboration with the Muslim community that is absolutely essential in a multi-faceted counterterrorism strategy.

There’s a necessary middle ground between shouting “radical Islam” from rooftops and dismissing it as politically charged sloganeering. McMaster starting on a cautious note could be the first step in such measured counterterrorism messaging.

Bridget Johnson is a senior fellow with the news and public policy group Haym Salomon Center and D.C. bureau chief for PJ Media.

The views expressed by this author are their own and are not the views of The Hill.