Obama's avoidance of term 'radical Islam' draws praise and scorn

U.S. PresidentBarackObamais being hailed by somefor hisspiriteddetermination to avoid usingtheterm "radical Islam"to describe the enemy in theongoing battle against ISIS.But he's being criticizedbyotherswho believe thephrase does carrysignificance.

"Words do matter. And I think it's an apt definition," said Bill Roggio, a senior fellow at theFoundation for Defence of Democracies, a Washington, D.C.-based national security think-tank."It's a radical aspect of a religion."

"Isit inaccurate?We have to define it as something.To call it violent extremism, what does that mean to anyone?To me, ourpoliticalleadership hasdodgedthatissue that Islam plays within this conflict."

• Obama dismisses Trump, Republican 'yapping' about radical Islam
• Trump's conga line to Demagogue City rollicks on: Neil Macdonald

Republicans have repeatedly said that Obama'scareful parsing to avoid using the term isa sign of over-caution and political correctness that demonstrates denial about the groups responsible for the extremist view.

'Ridiculous' position

Elliott Abrams, theformer deputy national security adviser to former presidentGeorge W. Bush, said that Obama'sposition on this issue is "ridiculous" as is the president's viewthat ISIS has nothing to do with Islam.

"You can call it a corrupted or extreme version of Islam, but to suggest that there is no link at all between such groups and Islam is absurd," Abrams said.

On Tuesday, Obamaaddressed the debate, specifically taking on presumptive Republican presidential nomineeDonaldTrump's charge that the president'spolicies have been hampered by his refusal to use the phrase "radical Islam."

Following the Orlando club shooting early Sunday, Trump released a statementsaying Obamahad "disgracefully refused" to use the term and "forthat reason alone, he should step down."

The president has dismissed the criticism as a "political talking point" and Republican "yapping,"saying "there is no magic to the phrase 'radical Islam.' "

"What exactly would it change?" he said."Would it make [ISIS] less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none ofthe above."

And that, according to American University associate professorJordan Tama,is exactlyright, and all this talk about the phrase is just a way for Republicans to accuseObamaofnot doing enough to protect the U.S. or fight against terrorism.

"Saying 'radicalIslam' is not going to make U.S.counterterrorism policymore effective or somehow enable us to eliminate more terroristleaders or defeat ISIS more quickly," Tama said.

But it doesfeed a narrative that there's a religious clash going onand itcan alienate some Muslims neededin this battle against ISIS, he said.

Trump's call to use the term "radical Islamic terrorism" is particularly problematic, Tamasaid,because the term could implythat terrorism is somehow Islamic by nature.

• On Orlando shooting, Trump hints 'there's something going on' withObama
• Clinton, Trump at odds over tackling terrorism, guns

Instead, the phrase "violent Jihadism"would be more accurate and avoid suggesting that Islam is equated with terrorist attacks, he said.

"This debate about whether to use the term radical Islam or Islamic terrorism really distracts attention from what we're actually doing, what are our policies," Tama said,"becauseour actions aremuch more importantthanwhat words we use."

Colin Clarke,an associate political scientist specializingin insurgency and transnational terrorismat the RandCorporation,a California-basedglobal policy think-tank, said he can see both sides of the debate.

Technically, as it pertains to ISIS,this is an issue about a specific form of terrorism,salafistjihadism, a term which is likely too confusing andopaquefor Americans, Clarke said

"But I think it's important tothe extentthat we're all on the same page,Americans and the West, in knowing exactly what we're fighting against. And that's where I think terminology would be important."

'A lot of nuance'

And he agreed with Tama that Obama likely refrains from using the term becausehe is mindful of not alienating the broader Muslim community whose help is needed in identifying people who are undergoing the radicalization process.

"I think he'sright in thatrespect. There's a lot of nuance thatgoesintothis stuff."

However, Clarke was of a similar mind asObama, asking what purpose does calling it "radical Islamic terrorism" serve in the battle being waged.

"Does itget us any closer to defeating it?I have yet to hear a cogentexplanationthat we need to call it thisbecausethat will get us closer to defeating it."