The memorandum is appalling! The intent of the memorandum is, in and of itself, a threat. Yes, words matter, as does the specific identification of the threats, the nature of the threats, and the philosophical support for the threats; these aspects must be clearly and specifically identified. In this case, the threat is glossed over and colored by political correctness. This is most certainly the analogous to the path that Europe has taken beginning with the Euro Arab Dialogue 35 years ago and resulting in an imminent threat to Europe’s social, political and cultural traditions.

To adopt the cautions recommended in this memorandum essentially counsel that the U.S. Government (USG) not apply the terms that are used regularly and frequently by the actual individuals involved in the application of radical ideologies. That fact, on the face of it, is political correctness taken to a standard incompatible with accurate definition of the threats.  

DHS has not identified exactly which “experts” and organizations were involved in these recommendations.  Surely, DHS has nothing to hide and maintains no reservations about the bias of their “experts”! Should not we be able to judge the proclivities and connections of these "experts” so as to more fully evaluate the recommendations? Unfortunately, It is not difficult to surmise from the tone of the recommendations that individuals such as John Esposito and organizations such as the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) were crucial to this process. Mr. Esposito and MPAC have a long history of pursuing, politically correct semantics, and obfuscation. Most, with expertise on the subject of radical Islam know well both the orientation and the Saudi based funding sources for MPAC, Mr. Esposito and their philosophical associates.  

Those with a modicum of knowledge on the subject do not need to be reminded by these recommendations that radical Islam is not representative of all Muslims. However, we are also be reminded of ongoing public opinion polling here and in the Middle East, which indicates significant philosophical support for Islamist goals here and in a wide variety of countries across the globe that fall within the global Muslim community, 10% of 1.3 Billion is a lot of radical Islamists and that is a conservative estimate based on Mr. Esposito’s latest book and the questions that have been directed at that work and it’s shoddy methodology intended to cloud the scope of global radical Islam.

Recommendation 1 is nearly laughable as it deals with the caution not to lump all terrorist organizations into a single category. No knowledgeable, thoughtful commentator "collapses all terrorist organizations into a single enemy". Granted commentary that identifies the entire Muslim World as an enemy is problematic and thoughtless but I cannot recall any statements from The State Department, DHS or the Executive Branch that have even flirted with that assertion. So why that recommendation? Knowledgeable observers realize that there is a wide variety of ideologies in the radical universe. They also realize that the goals remain relatively the same, an issue not considered in the recommendation.

Expert Recommendation 2 asserts that the specific use of certain terms provides relevance to terrorists, such as Mujahadeen, and Islamist. If one were to review open source material from, say, MEMRI, those are the terms radical Islamists use to describe themselves. Our elimination of these descriptive terms will have no impact on those orientated to a radical theology and the tactics of terrorism. Whether or not we do or do not "concede" terrorist's claims to religious legitimacy will have no impact. They do not, and will not look to the U.S. as a point of proof regarding religious legitimacy, the concern of this recommendation. If terms such as Islamist create a concern that misunderstanding might occur than the USG should commence an effort to educate the public not eliminate the use of terms that are specifically descriptive and self-applied by Islamists.  

The memorandum is quite right that moderate Muslims do not consider the Islamists legitimate in terms of a declaration of Jihad. However, a recommendation to avoid the term Jihad has no impact on those that actually represent the threat. Jihad can have a variety of meanings and classifications within Islam, however less political correctness and more education relative to Jihad is a productive exercise, but not one of the recommendations by our “experts”. A specific rendering of Jihad, its interpretation, its application and the manner in which those that threaten us use the term would be a better use of time and resources.

Expert Recommendation 4 represents a serious stretch by the “experts” to find alternative rhetoric where it is not necessary. What is stated as background in the recommendation is clearly true but the substitution of words like “sectarian cult” and “violent cultists” for radical Islamists serves no purpose other than to attempt to separate Islam from the idea of Radical Islam. No serious study of the issue can separate Islam from semantics that substitute "cults" or "death cults".   Islam, as interpreted by the radicals, is central to everything they do and believe. Are the radicals a minority, yes of course, but that same minority has dominated the dialogue for the past 10 years and they DO represent the actual threat. 

The USG needs to do a much better job of defining Radical Islam for what it is and justifiably separating it from mainstream Islam. To change the rhetoric should not be the issue; to educate the public should be the issue. To educate the public we must be prepared to call radical Islam what it is, identify its components and its interpretive basis regarding its religious foundations. What we refer to as radical Islam has been present within Islam for some time and the attempt to manage perception with rhetorical code words is, at best, inveterate stupidity.

Expert Recommendation 5 deals with what might be offensive to Muslims.   Based on any serious review of Muslim American organizations the issue of what might be "offensive" is a continually evolving state of affairs. If so innocent a term as moderate is offensive, DHS should rethink this entire exercise. In fact, in the days, immediately following September 11th the term moderate was used extensively by representatives of Muslim American organizations to reflect what they considered the majority of American Muslims.  Moderate is now considered offensive and is to be replaced by “ordinary”, “mainstream” or “everyday” Muslim. That should change everything!

From these small seeds of appeasement will evolve a never-ending set of demands and recommendations to insure that Muslims are not offended. It’s not about offending Muslims it’s about creating a politically correct basis for discussing aspects of Islam that eliminates accurate descriptive terms for the radical elements in Islam. This effort by DHS and its implications may be found to be offensive to "ordinary" non-Muslims. No such efforts are undertaken to insure that the sensibilities of Jews and Christians are protected from affront or offense.

Expert Recommendation 6 recommends that we replace references to radical Islam with the term Takfirism. OK, fair point; it’s an accurate description of the umbrella philosophy. However, if we're prepared to educate relative to the dynamics of Takfirism, why not the dynamics of the specific component parts of the ideology? A very small percentage of Americans can accurately identify the components of Takfirism. Use of the term will not enlighten many in the general public. In other of these recommendations, the perception of the public is at issue and seemingly, a motivation for this effort, however, this recommendation seems at odds with others. It is valid to identify Takfirism as an umbrella under with most of radical Islam can be covered, but use of the term short of an extensive explanation of the history and ideology is aimed at which audience?

Expert Recommendation 7 is a favorite; it states that we should not speak of being engaged in a War on Terrorism, or a War on Radical Islam or a clash of cavitations. What we are engaged in is……wait for it…….. "A Global Struggle for Security and Progress".

No, sorry, we are not engaged in “A Global Struggle for Security and Progress we are engaged in a philosophical battle between a radical vision of Islam and traditional western values of democracy, inclusion and tolerance. 

While many agree that "War on Terror" is an inaccurate term, the aforementioned Global Struggle is even more so. This terminology is so glaringly indiscriminate as to be meaningless. The recommendation of this phrase in the effort to describe what we are "for" is incomprehensible and would do a significant disservice to the accomplishment any generalized understanding of what we face. 

Then there are the three strategic recommendations.

Strategic Recommendation 1 attempts to disclaim the religious component of the global challenges we face. The simple fact is that the global challenges we face do have a religious component.  While the challenges do transcend geography, as stated in the recommendation, they do not transcend religion. Religion is, from the Islamist’s, perspective central to their worldview, their recruiting, their tactics and their empowering Fatwas. To ignore the religious component is the worse kind of inanity. This portion of the memorandum recommends that we do, in fact, ignore the religious component. 

Is it not important to accept and understand threats in the context of those that are creating the threat? If the answer to this question is yes, you simply cannot separate religion from the landscape.

Strategic Recommendation 2 addressed the self-evident truth that Takfirism is the antithesis of order and structure in Islam from an “everyday” Muslims point of view. Really? The fact that, in public opinion polling, a minimum of 70% of Middle Eastern Muslims, at least tacitly, support al Qaeda, its goals and its leadership represents a bit of a disconnect to this spurious assumption. Security is not a global value, and Middle Eastern Islam does not represent the order and structure as purported. Radical Islam depends on a lack of security as foundational to its aspirations. The concept of "security" may resonate in America as a theme, but only with those who fail to understand the nature of the threats.

Strategic Recommendation 3 addresses words that “many around the world view as buzzwords for American hegemony.”  A reading of the Middle Eastern press will provide a long list of words that are associated with American Hegemony, true or not. The recommendation stresses that use of the word Liberty should be absent from the lexicon, the exact quote follows. 

“The experts we consulted debated the word “liberty”, but rejected it because many around the world would discount the term as a buzzword for American hegemony” 

Elimination of the word liberty from our rhetoric will not take the edge off the ongoing criticism of all things American. The very fact that this word generated a debate is incomprehensible and is clearly indicative of the point of view that the “experts” bring to these recommendations.  Liberty is a fundamental American value and we have aspired, as no other nation in history, to spend lives and treasure to provide for others what we most value for ourselves, ...Liberty!

Expert Recommendation 8 calls for the recognition of Muslim integration in America as a success story. Integration is a reality there can be no question about it. The questions, however, do center on degrees and where the trend lines are going. Successful American Muslims, no question about it. American Muslims that are not fully integrated, also no question about it. 

The National Security Estimate’s concern with homegrown terror cells is only one piece of evidence that not all “everyday” Muslims share American values. There is much evidence that identification as a Muslim trumps all other points of identification including being an American. However, again it is a question of degrees.

Further, there can be no denial of the facts associated with the degree to which Muslim American organizations have been engaged in behaviors that are very specifically and significantly at odds with American values and law. These points of disconnect between the rhetoric and the actual behaviors is well documented; Terror financing, support for radical movements in America and support for domestic terrorism are well documented. 

Expert Recommendation 9 opines that we should emphasize America’s openness to Religious and Ethnic communities. If American Muslims do not already know that America set the historical standard for religious tolerance and acceptance of all ethnic traditions I seriously doubt DHS can do much about it by managing rhetoric. This recommendation recommends that we do what we are already doing and have been doing for 250 years.

Why is all of this a concern? Because this is how the Muslim incursion into Europe began 35 years ago. With carefully managed rhetoric, political correctness, ignorance of Islam’s long-term goals, a lack of appreciation for the patience Islam is prepared to apply to their goals, appeasement in the interest of security, the creation of bureaucratic institutions and councils, and collective guilt.

There is a lesson in the history that Europe can teach us. A price to pay is all too evident assuming one takes the time to look.