"What Difference Would it Make?"

“What difference would it make?”

Yesterday, I listened to a speech delivered by President Obama in the aftermath of the Orlando massacre.  As we have come to expect, it was a well-delivered speech including an argumentative section during which the President exhibited an uncommon level of emotion.

After appropriate remarks of sorrow and condolence over the unconscionable mass shooting at a gay club in Orlando the President turned his focus unexpectedly to the presidential campaign.  Specifically, he chose this occasion to address the persistent insistence of some that the President call the perpetrators of these unimaginable attacks “radical Islamic terrorists.” 

The President’s ire became increasingly evident as he asked repeatedly, “What difference would it make if my administration called the perpetrators radical Islamic terrorists?” After each rhetorical use of the question, he wondered if it would make a difference in the numbers of sortees that have been flown against the terrorists, or the number of terrorist leaders who’ve been killed, or the number of our troops who have given their lives in this war on terror, and so on.

He repeated earlier explanations of his choice of terms that are free of religious reference by generally asserting that use of the term Islam in the phrase some would prefer…radical Islamic terrorists…would cast aspersions on the world’s entire, enormous Muslim population to the delight of the terrorists.

At the end of the speech, I again admired the President’s ability to deliver remarks clearly and forcefully, but I was left with only two possible conclusions about the real answer to his question, “What difference would it make if my administration called the perpetrators radical Islamic terrorists?”  Either he didn’t know the most important answer to his own question, or he didn’t think his audience was sufficiently astute to go beyond his assertions to find the more important answer.

We have been busy for some time killing the agents of the real enemy that is challenging the western way of life.  The enemy is a radical ideology derived from the Islamic faith.  While it is likely that derivation is perverse, it has occurred, and it is the worldview that is leading terrorists to horrific acts of violence against hundreds of innocent people.  It is the ideology that is the real enemy, and while we can kill the agents of that ideology with armament, it is unlikely we will kill the ideology physically.

The difference it would make if this administration called our present danger radical Islamic terrorism is that it might then focus sufficient attention on considering how to stem the growth of this Middle Age ideology as we continue to try to kill those who hold it.

See the associated cartoon.