As I mentioned on Saturday, The Atlantic has published a lengthy article by Jeffrey Goldberg in its April issue on “The Obama Doctrine.” Not only is the article definitely worth reading, there is a lot to comment on.
When it comes to terrorism, one of the things President Obama, and his administration, may be most famous for is refusing to call it “Islamic terrorism.” When Nidal Hassan killed 13 people and wounded more than 30 others at Fort Hood in 2009, while yelling “Allahhu Akbar” (“God is Great” in Arabic), the Administration said it was “workplace violence”. It took an act of Congress to get Purple Hearts for those who were shot or wounded and to get benefits to their families.
The question is why. Does President Obama really think this has nothing to do with Islam – or at least people who claim to believe in Islam? Based on the article, it doesn’t seem to be that. Here is what the President said in his conversations with Mr. Goldberg:
“‘[Francois] Hollande and [David] Cameron have used phrases, like radical Islam, that we have not used on a regular basis as our way of targeting terrorism. … [But] [i]t is very clear what I mean, which is that there is a violent, radical, fanatical, nihilistic interpretation of Islam by a faction – a tiny faction – within the Muslim community that is our enemy, and that has to be defeated.’” [italics in original]
The problem is that it isn’t “very clear” what President Obama means. And it isn’t clear precisely because he won’t call things by their proper names. When you won’t call something what it is, when you use euphemisms to avoid calling it what it is, people wonder whether you understand – and, maybe, whether you will do what is necessary to fight it. So why won’t he call it Islamic terrorism or radical Islam? Mr. Goldberg explains it here:
“Those who speak with Obama about jihadist thought say that he possesses a no-illusions understanding of the forces that drive apocalyptic violence among radical Muslims, but he has been careful about articulating that publicly, out of concern that he will exacerbate anti-Muslim xenophobia.”
and here:
“Obama modulates his discussion of terrorism for several reasons: He is, by nature, Spockian. And he believes that a misplaced word, or a frightened look, or an ill-considered hyperbolic claim, could tip the country into panic. The sort of panic he worries about most is the type that would manifest itself in anti-Muslim xenophobia or in a challenge to American openness and to the constitutional order.”
In other words, the reason President Obama won’t call it Islamic terrorism is not because he doesn’t understand. It’s because he doesn’t trust the American people. He thinks if he calls it Islamic terrorism, we will overreact into xenophobia. He makes two mistakes in doing this.
First, he underestimates the American people. He doesn’t trust us. We aren’t xenophobes. If the President will talk to us like adults, the vast majority of the American people will react like adults. The problem right now is that the President isn’t keeping up his end of the bargain.
Second, when the President refuses to talk about “radical Islam” or “Islamic terrorism,” it makes it easier for people like Donald Trump to claim they are telling truth when the President won’t. And to claim that our leaders are more concerned with political correctness than keeping America safe. I don’t think that is true, but when the Administration refuses to call these things “radical Islam” or “Islamic terrorism,” it makes it easier for people like Donald Trump to make claims like this and to stoke nativism where it doesn’t have to be.
By refusing to talk to us honestly, like adults, and to call things what they really are, the President has, unfortunately, wound up encouraging the very thing he wants to avoid.
Comments