Wednesday, June 15, 2016

A Threat by Any Other Name: Why President Obama Refuses to Name Islamic Terrorism

In a statement at the White House, President Obama commented on his inability to say the words "radical Islamic terrorism."

As he put it, "Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. … There’s no magic to the phrase of radical Islam. It’s a political talking point."

In response to Obama's response, why should the President of the US name the enemy in worldwide terrorism?

1) By naming the enemy, the administration could formulate effective policy and strategy on how to best combat terrorism. (This is opposed to the ineffective and dangerous policy that is in place.) It is far too clear that the current administration's policy in the Mideast is bankrupt, handing Islamists free reign to terrorize their own people, to plan terrorism in the West, and to recruit ideologues to take up arms in defense of a corrupt, evil ideology.

2) By naming the enemy, the US intelligence community could be let loose to pinpoint those who are most likely to wage war inside the US, without fear of losing their jobs because they expressed opinions about Muslims that weren't politically correct.

3) By naming the enemy, we could finally have a real dialog about Islam, instead of fomenting more hatred against innocent people.  This includes the idea that Islamist terrorism is a cancer boiling up inside of Islam. While it is part of Islam, it is an aberrant growth within the body of Islam that threatens to destroy the healthy tissue.

4) By naming the enemy, Obama would undermine the progressive fantasy that terrorism is a mere crime.

5) By naming the enemy, Obama would undermine the utterly foolish border doctrine allowing thousands of unemployable people into the US, along with those who wish to wage war against the people of the US.

6) By naming the enemy, Obama would no longer have an excuse to undermine the foundational principle of the individual right to protect ourselves with firearms. Justice Alito settled this in 2010 by saying, "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

7) By naming the enemy, Obama could no longer blame the violence on the "intolerance" of nameless Americans who disagree with his dogmas. Convenient labels such as "homophobe," or "bigot," or even "Christian right," could no longer be applied when acts of terrorism are committed in the US. His rhetoric would therefore be emptied of the vast pool of hatred built into progressive dogma.

It's clear why Obama cannot name the enemy in terrorism. Too much of his own ideology is tied up in protecting his own bankrupt dogmas.