A few days after the massacre of 30 British subjects on a Tunisian beach, the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, used an interview on the BBC to berate the broadcaster and others for using the term "Islamic State." Mr. Cameron's suggestion was that the broadcaster should either refer to the "so-called Islamic State," use the acronym "ISIL," or adopt the Arabic term, "Daesh."
None of these suggestions is workable. The Irish Republican Army (IRA) was never the "army" of the Irish Republic. It was instead a group of sectarian terrorists who claimed to fight for a community that was largely disgusted by their actions. Yet throughout a bombing and murder campaign lasting three decades, the BBC never referred to the IRA as the "so-called IRA." The group called itself the IRA, and so broadcasters and others referred to it as such. One might wish to call such groups all sorts of things, but calling by the name its leaders adopt is the easiest option of presenting the facts and not getting bogged down in nomenclature.
The Prime Minister's other suggestions -- that the Islamic State should either be called "ISIL" or "Daesh" -- are equally doomed to failure. For ISIL
of course simply means "Islamic State of Iraq and Levant," while "Daesh" is effectively an Arabic acronym of the same. If the aim of all this wordplay is that the general public dissociate "Islamic State" from Islam, there seems little hope that this will much help to break the connection. After all, what if someone -- anyone -- asks what ISIL or Daesh stand for? What should people then say in response?
Of course, the problem that the Prime Minister got into on this occasion is the same problem he and all other world leaders get into whenever they adopt the "Islam is a religion of peace" line. What they are perfectly understandably trying to do is to disentangle more than a billion Muslims worldwide (and specifically the tens of millions of Muslims in Western democracies) from the violent jihadists in their religion. At the same time, they -- again understandably -- hope to give the message to their non-Muslim publics that they should not blame Muslims everywhere for the actions of this violent minority.
This is a laudable aim, but it is doomed to failure because members of the public no longer rely on either politicians or the mainstream media as their only sources of information or news. They can perfectly well get on the internet and find things out for themselves, and it is in this growing gulf between what politicians say and what the general public can perfectly easily find out for itself that a real long-term danger could emerge.
All this is really a reminder that if we are in a war with ISIS, it is one in which we are performing very badly. Consider something said by Mr. Cameron's American counterpart a week after Cameron's statement. President Barack Obama gave a press conference at the Pentagon in which he, too, discussed the group that must not be named. On this occasion, the President said that the fight against ISIS was "not simply a military effort," and went on to say, "Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they are defeated by better ideas, a more attractive and more compelling vision."
Throughout a bombing-and-murder campaign lasting three decades, the BBC never referred to the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as the "so-called IRA." If you flatten ISIS's military, the strong-horse appeal of ISIS would simply go away. If there is nothing to join, no one can join it.
Cameron's and Obama's tactic is to deny something that Muslims and non-Muslims can easily see and find out for themselves: that ISIS has a lot to do with Islam -- the worst possible version, obviously, for Muslims and non-Muslims alike, but a version of Islam nevertheless.
By Douglas Murray
Associate Director of the Henry Jackson Society (@HJS_org) author and media commentator.