In the wake of the Orlando attack, Hillary Clinton ended one of the Republican party's most-used critiques against Democrats. In a phone call the presumptive Democratic nominee called the attack an act of radical Islamic terrorism.
For almost every terrorist attack during Obama's tenure the President has avoided calling acts of terrorism by Muslims as acts of "Radical Islamic Terrorism." Republicans have often used this to criticize the President, saying that because Obama isn't bold enough to recognize the attacks for what they are he is ignorant or incompetent in the fight against Al Qaeda and now ISIS.
Hillary Clinton was clever enough to recognize this line of attack, as it was used against her after San Bernadino, Paris and Brussels. So she decided to simply say it was an attack of radical Islamic terrorism so that Donald Trump could not accuse her of being to politically correct to recognize the "real enemy." The Republican nominee instead claimed he had successfully predicted such an attack would happen and reiterated his ban on Muslims entering the country.
Obama's caution of using the term radical Islamic terrorism is understandable. Most Muslims (especially in America) are horrified at these attacks and are in no way connected to terrorism. And the President is no doubt afraid that by saying "Islamic" and "terrorism" next to each other will make people think that their Muslim neighbors are the enemy, and will start treating them as so.
But both the President and Trump are wrong about the term. Firstly, Obama doesn't need to feel afraid of saying radical Islam because essentially everyone knows that acts of terrorism like Orlando are done by Muslims. The 24-hour news cycle is quick to point out the attacker's religion, and it is constantly reminding us how ISIS is trying to recruit mentally ill and socially inept young people into committing horrific acts of violence. Although Obama's intentions are noble, it is like trying to stop a forest fire with a sprinkler.
But Trump and the Republicans' criticism of Obama is much more duplicitous. Obama is not cowardly by avoiding the words "radical Islam," or incompetent. In fact he has shown to be the most aware of the problems in the Middle East, knowing full well that large-scale troop invasions are both costly and ineffective at beating terrorism.
And more importantly, Republican leadership is well aware that whether or not the President says "radical Islam" nothing will change. Republicans will continue thinking that more should be done to combat ISIS, Democrats will think that most Muslims are blameless. And ISIS will not suddenly become afraid of the President, nor will American Muslims start fearing for their safety.
ISIS is afraid of the United States. They are slowly losing ground to the various forces facing them, from the Iraqi siege at Fallujah, and the emboldened Syrian government. Obama has very wisely decided to let the less radical factions in the area remove ISIS instead of direct involvement, and the strategy is working. ISIS' efforts to do terrorism involved is an attempt to gaud the US into attacking, which would be a useful recruiting platform to fight the "Imperialistic American infidels."
And American Muslims are already afraid. Donald Trump has already said he would bring back torture, kill the terrorists families and ban all Muslims from entering the US. Runner-up and so-called constitutionalist Ted Cruz said he would make the police patrol Muslim neighborhoods. And there are many efforts to block Syrian refugees from entering the country, despite it being far easier for a terrorist to enter with a student VISA rather than posing as a refugee with a family.
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised at that last one, as the US refused Jewish refugees during WWII and Vietnamese ones in their intervention. But the rhetoric is certainly spiraling into a dark rabbit hole, not just for Muslims but other minorities. Whether or not politicians say "radical Islamic terrorism" is unimportant, as terrorism is here and words won't change that. It is far more important that American leaders talk about the problems they face and how to solve them, rather than fixating on talking points that don't change anything.
