Be honest about who and what U.S. is fighting

Over a decade and half into a war against a global Islamist terrorist threat that endangers both the United States and many of its allies, Washington is having trouble describing what it's fighting.

The Obama administration favored a generic approach. It tried to cleave the terrorists from the religion they profess, describing efforts to combat radicalization as "countering violent extremism" (CVE). Indeed, many of the programs the government conducted or promoted discouraged discussions of Islamist-related terrorism.

That solved exactly nothing. CVE might be about anything, from white supremacists to environmental anarchists. It's hard to fight a war of ideas if there's no focus on the idea. It would be like trying to win the Cold War without ever mentioning communism.

CVE also offered a safe harbor for extremists such as the Muslim Brotherhood that would front for more violent groups. In some cases, they would carve out a role for themselves as the "partner" to outreach to Muslim communities - like an arsonist joining the fire department. They would also use CVE work as a cover to attack more robust anti-Islamist efforts as "Islamophobia."

Meanwhile, the U.S. government was writing checks at home and overseas for a blitzkrieg of programs that might or might not accomplish anything.

It is past time to stop wasting time, money, and effort. The Trump administration ought to rethink what's being done, from top to bottom.

First, the U.S. government ought to get over a phobia against labeling extremists political movements or terrorists as Islamists. Islamism is not a pejorative short-hand for Muslims we don't like. In the modern era, the term was always meant to infer a political movement that argued it was based on a particular interpretation of religious concepts. When the goals of that totalitarian movement is tied to antidemocratic methods, violence, and terrorism, then labeling them Islamist is just being accurate.

Second, dump the term CVE. After all, we managed to fight and win the Cold War without a bumper sticker for countering communist extremism. CVE is an awkward label that contributes little to explaining what government programs should be. Instead, just buckle down and do it.

Third, rein in domestic programs. Counting every individual in the United States who has plotted a terrorist attack since 9/11 or been convicted of providing material support to terrorism adds up to a total "radicalized" population of about 1,000 individuals in population of more than 320 million. Domestic efforts ought to be more focused on traditional counterterrorism operations, which have proven far more effective at stopping and thwarting attacks.

Further, the U.S. government ought to spend more effort looking at subversive political movements such as American affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood. My colleague Robin Simcox has rightly called for "an up-to-date review of the Brotherhood's strategy in the U.S. and ideological or operational ties to American groups . . . to ensure that the U.S. government does not fund or engage with groups and charities tied to the Muslim Brotherhood."

Fourth and finally, overseas our programs need to go retail. While ISIS and al-Qaeda have a global footprint, the size and shape of the foot looks different in different parts of the world. The United States doesn't need a universal label for what should be a plethora of discrete and crafted activities dealing with a global, but disparate Islamist threat.

What the United States might do to support freedom and democracy in Tunisia might, for example, look very different from efforts to get Pakistan to discredit the Haqqani Network. Where we have an interest overseas in protecting our interests, we ought to supporting specific programs for a specific objective.

As Sun Tzu once wrote, "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." It's time to jettison the CVE label - and be honest about who and what we're fighting.

James Jay Carafano directs the Heritage Foundation's research program for national security and foreign relations (www.heritage.org).