On my drive home, the pundits were still arguing over whether Obama should use the words "Islamic terrorist" instead of "violent extremist."
I recently wrote about that here. Since ISIS' violence and appeal are based upon its interpretation of Islam, which it maintains calls for retribution and "an eye for an eye", it's hard to say the word should never be used. They do view themselves as followers of Islam, and they are violent extremists. The problem lies in the fact that too many non-Muslims will equate Islam with ISIS' views of it, when those views are repudiated by most of the world's Muslims. The term creates prejudice and reduces tolerance. And that's bad. So since ISIS can aptly be described without the term "Islamic", I have no problem not using it.
On a related note, I heard too many pundits and "experts" today cherry pick their preferred version of what ISIS is about, while ignoring the rest. That over-simplifies ISIS and is not helpful in my view. For example, a few said ISIS is motivated by the desire for revenge for the war in Iraq and our constant presence in the Middle East, and left it at that, hoping to further support for the idea that we must destroy ISIS or they will destroy us.
ISIS wasn't interested in attacking the West until the airstrikes. That's when their attacks began. And they did warn the U.S. against the strikes.
ISIS' is about much more than attacking the West. Its chief motivation is establishing its Caliphate, tearing down the borders in the Middle East, and implementing Sharia law. Everything it does is based upon its religious vision of the Apocalypse and preparing for the final battles in Dabiq (Syria) and "Rome" (which is not Italy, but either Turkey or any other place its Western enemies, come to fight the final battle.)
Back to Obama: I didn't get to hear his plan for a new online fight against ISIS' ideology. I'll be interested to see what it entails. If the new online campaigns can skip the patriotic flag-waving and mocking and insults to ISIS, and instead present and promote its alternative ideology in a positive light, it could get some traction. But castigating ISIS and its ideology will not work -- it's reminiscent of Reagan's "Just Say No" to drugs and the War on Drugs has been a huge failure. The West has to offer something tangible that's more desirable than what ISIS is offering, and it has to be something that is a realistic possibility for those living in places like Syria, Iraq and Libya. The last part may be the toughest.
Update: The new U.S. online campaign seems no different than its past attempts -- doomed to failure. Here's the
latest tweet of the State Department. It can't stop itself from mixing insults with a positive message.
Terrorists offer misery/death - free societies & diverse communities offer path to opportunity, justice & dignity:
It should have left the sledgehammer at home and just sent out the positive idea:
Free and diverse communities offer path to opportunity, justice & dignity.
The idea alone is something to think about. By combining it with a negative judgment about ISIS, the whole thing will be dismissed by those the U.S. most wants to reach -- those who are already considering ISIS. It has a lecturing, value-laden tone, rather than a suggestive one.
Too bad. This could have had some promise.
