I keep hearing that we should not describe our fight with Islamic militants as a religious war, should not describe it as a cultural conflict, and should say nothing that would lend support to the claims of the terrorists that this is a conflict between east and west or between Islam and Christianity.

Superficially this is a valid argument, or it appears to be one. Then again, there are several reasons to doubt its validity.

The stated goal is to prevent anything which might lend legitimacy to claims of an Islamic jihad, or of a western war against Islam. The fear is that the moderates in the Islamic world might hear such sentiments and then side with the terrorists. That so long as it seems a limited conflict between a small group of terrorists and the US disconnected from religion or culture, those moderates will not become terrorist sympathizers.

This is wrong for two reasons.

First, in most cases these moderates do not exist. In Iraq there are Moslems who side with the US for practical reasons, and in Turkey the moslem majority is by and large quite western in outlook. But in most nations where terrorists operate, there simply are no moderates, at least not in the sense that people imagine. Those who live in terrorist sponsoring regions either support terrorism or are silent. Perhaps those pushing this position think those silent ones are moderates, but that doesn't matter. If they are silent it means either they assent to the terrorist goals, or else they are so cowed by the terrorists they fear to speak out. In either case they are not going to support the west. So what is the point in trying to appeal to them through circumlocutions which only serve to confuse our own citizens as to the real issues?

Second, I disagree with the basic premise. When the west waged war on Japan in World War II, even going so far as to inter the Japanese Americans in several states, the Japanese did not side with Imperial Japan, but formed military units to prove their loyalty. So why would Moselms act differently? Are those proposing this belief saying the Moslems are any less patriotic than the Japanese? Are they suggesting Moslems are prone to terrorism?

Well, I know some will ask, what is the harm?

The harm is simple, if not obvious. This war on terrorists may not be entirely a cultural war, but on the side of the terrorists, culture and religion are definitely a major factor. To obscure that is to reduce the understanding most people have of the causes and issues of the war. When the average American hears that the other side wants conversion or death, he has great resolve in the fight.  When he hears thatw e are fighting an "Islamist perversion of the religion of peace" he has no idea what we are fighting or why and his resolve falters. By obscuring the real causes of the war, we sow the seeds of our own defeat.

Then again, many of those pushing a PC description of the war are also heavily invested in our defeat, so maybe they are not so upset if their Newspeak description helps hasten our loss.

NOTE

By the way, I wrote before about my affinity for some of the aspects of Islam, especially historically. While I am quite confirmed in my own religion, I still find quite a bit to admire in the writings of Rabia, Rumi, Avicena, al-Farabi and al-Ghazali.* (Not sure why Khalil Gibran is so famous though, never liked him that much. Certainly less than Rumi, for example.) So I do not think Islam is inherently barbarous. On the other hand, the current Wahabbi interpretation does lend itself to extremism, and the fusion of nationalism with Islam that took place in the mid twentieth century does not help.

Still, far from being a hater of Islam, I am someone who sees the value in many Islamic traditions and who sees their current direction as a horrible mistake. But I am also not about to call Islam the religion of peace and claim this is a perversion. This violent, jihadist trend has always been present in Islam. During good times, it was largely suppressed, and the religion flourished, but at other times, such as today, it comes to the fore and the religion adopts a more violent tone. And that violent tendency disturbs me**.

To put it simply, I admire many Islamic scholars, but I also think that we do a disservice by falsifying the history of nay religion. Islam has had both good and bad, and to whitewash their history is to treat them as children. It is far less condescending to treat the religion honestly. I am quite willing to describe the shortcomings of Judaism, and I give Moslems the benefit of believing they are as much adults as I am, and are willing to be forthright about their religion as well. (And those who are unwilling to do so are a big part of the problem, and I see no reason to cater to them in our discussions.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Yes, it is a very eclectic list, and quite contradictory. For example al-Farabi and al-Ghazali are almost opposites of one another. And if you include my fondness for Maimonides and Abulafia, it makes it even more peculiar. Still I find things to admire in each, even if I don't completely agree with any of them. Which is why I can enjoy such a disparate group of thinkers.

** There are parts of every faith that can harmful if emphasized improperly. Jihadist tendencies happen to be one of the specific faults of Islam. However, to say that faith can be misused in the hands of fallible men is not to say anything about the truth or falsehood of that faith, it just says something about the nature of men. So, please, no one write telling me Islam is divine and perfect, or to argue that their own faith has no weaknesses. All faiths can be perverted. Even if a given faith is true and perfect, men are not.