I had heard about his story yesterday, but didn’t take the time to research it. However, The Pirate’s Cove did it for me:
Obama Cites A Strategic Logic For Avoidance In Using Islamic Labels Or Something
By William Teach | February 19, 2015 – 7:21 am
It’s probably more like “strategic patience”, which is a phrase for a policy position more akin to “meh”. Like when you know you should really, really get your oil changed, but lying on the couch watching a TV show marathon is oh so comfy
(NY Times) President Obama chooses his words with particular care when he addresses the volatile connections between religion and terrorism. He and his aides have avoided labeling acts of brutal violence by Al Qaeda, the so-called Islamic State and their allies as “Muslim” terrorism or describing their ideology as “Islamic” or “jihadist.”
With remarkable consistency — including at a high-profile White House meeting this week, “Countering Violent Extremism” — they have favored bland, generic terms over anything that explicitly connects attacks or plots to Islam.
Obama aides say there is a strategic logic to his vocabulary: Labeling noxious beliefs and mass murder as “Islamic” would play right into the hands of terrorists who claim that the United States is at war with Islam itself. The last thing the president should do, they say, is imply that the United States lumps the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims with vicious terrorist groups.
Interesting. Obama and his team have absolutely no problem labeling Republicans, Tea Party members, Conservatives, Christians. Of course, we aren’t at war with the United States. As for Islamic extremists, they aren’t at war with the U.S. They’re at war with the world, at least the world that isn’t already Islamist.
Mr Teach has a lot more on his original.
Our President doesn’t want to somehow give “Al Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it . . . legitimacy” by labeling them as Islamic. Sorry, but ha is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in along time. Da’ish are not looking for “legitimacy” or some sort of recognition from the West; they are out for conquest! President Obama and his advisers are still trapped in the Western mindset of scholarly diplomacy, still thinking that his can somehow all be talked out, still thinking of our enemies in our terms instead of their own.
You cannot ever hope to defeat your enemies if you do not understand them, and you cannot understand them if you restrict your thinking to your own intellectual paradigm. And Da’ish are not at all hard to understand: they want power, ruling power, and are not at all afraid to use military force to get it. They are conquerors, just like thousands of conquerors before them. They cannot be defeated by anyone who is unwilling to fight them, militarily, on the battlefield, anyone unwilling to use armed might to shoot them stone-cold graveyard dead.
Military force is the ultimate form of political power; as long as one side is willing to use it in a dispute, that side will win, unless its opponents are also willing to use just as deadly a force against them. A clever conqueror will seize opportunities to take what he wishes with as little force as possible — see the picture to the above left — but, other than that, diplomacy is pretty much meaningless to the conqueror.
Da’ish have adopted a new tactic, the deliberate and public and brutal execution of prisoners, extending terrorism by the media to those who are in no way directly threatened by Da’ish, a tactic which has both energized and almost immobilized the leadership of the West; they have gone so far beyond the Pale as to put Western leaders back on their heels, unable to figure out what to do about Da’ish because they do not, they cannot, and they refuse to try to understand the enemy. But, in the end, Da’ish are still simple conquerors, savage in away that would have made Genghis Khan proud, but just conquerors nevertheless.
And the only way to deal with conquerors is to fight back, or surrender.