Editorial: Trump's phrase will weaken, not help, fight against terror
No one appreciates the power of words more than those of us for whom they form the foundation of our mission and our livelihood. So, we well understand the impulse to find a phrase that succinctly describes the force behind the succession of mass killings roiling the nation. And we also well understand the dangers of that impulse. Wise heads will consider them with restraint.
Restraint is no virtue of the politically ambitious, of course, and even less so in the case of presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee Donald Trump. Following the murderous rampage in Orlando Sunday, Trump was quick to find a microphone and declare that this attack and most like it are the acts of "radical Islamists," and that the president should resign if he's not willing to describe them with that phrase.
The latter statement is purely provocative, of course, and as such merits no response. But the former, the claim that has gained some popularity suggesting that labeling these terrorist acts "radical Islam" will somehow help us overcome them, demands sober reflection.
For, that approach will in fact do the opposite. It will inhibit and could cripple our ability to combat and thwart extremist terrorism. As President Obama knows, and anyone knows who pays even limited attention to the rhetoric of al-Qaida, ISIS and other such fundamentalist organizations, these groups long for words and actions from the West that gain them sympathy from moderate Muslims and potential recruits from the vulnerable. Having the leader of the free world appear to pit the West against an entire religion only helps them. It overlooks the fact that extremist terrorism overwhelmingly affects Muslims more than any other group, and it weakens the resolve of the Muslims whose help the West needs to fight terror.
Even more to the point, the term is neither precise nor accurate. While some of the mass murderers who are Muslims - keeping in mind that non-Muslims have also proved themselves capable of agonizing the nation in such places as Newtown, Connecticut; Charleston, South Carolina; and Aurora, Colorado - have aligned themselves with fundamentalist groups like al-Qaida or ISIS, the specific connections have sometimes been vague at best, and in the specific case of the Orlando shooter, a young man known for irrational fits of violent temper, they appear to have been little more than a cause of convenience, an opportunity for a troubled and angry loner to give credence to his rage.
What then is the potential value of using the term "radical Islam" to define such attacks? Does it help us distinguish "the good Muslims" from "the bad"? Does it give a body of individuals a uniform we can use to identify the enemy? Does it, at best, demonstrate we will not let some show of "political correctness" deter us from identifying and isolating those who would do us harm?
No, it does none of these things. The phrase does not have that much power. It does have political power, of course, allowing partisan bullies to portray discretion as weakness. And worse, it has the power to diminish our effectiveness in the war against terror. Those who, like candidate Trump and others, are tempted toward bigoted generalities in the fight against terrorism ought to think more deeply about whether their words have the power to help our cause or to hurt it.