Daniel Byman discusses the advantages and disadvantages of fighting “radical Islam” vs named groups on Lawfare. I found this interesting:
Indeed, the Islamic State and Al Qaeda are only two jihadist groups among many. Al Qaeda has affiliates throughout the Middle East that work with the mother movement, at least fitfully. Similarly, the Islamic State claims “provinces” in other countries, with some, such as the one in Libya, having close ties to the Syria-Iraq core while others, like that in Nigeria, are far more removed. In addition, there are unaffiliated groups like Ansar-e Sharia in Libya or Ahrar al-Sham in Syria, which may not be subordinate to either the Islamic State or Al Qaeda but are still violent and anti-American. Individuals from one group often flow to another depending on opportunity, circumstances, and relative prestige.
The label “Radical Islam” also brings in a range of individuals and actors that do not neatly fit one group or another and may even move back and forth among the bodies in the broader jihadist universe. In particular, this might include “lone wolves”—individuals who are not under the direct control of a terrorist group but are inspired to act by its message. Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, was not really a member of Al Qaeda or the Islamic State, yet he was a jihadist terrorist. For the United States in particular, these lone wolves have proven the biggest terrorism danger to the U.S. homeland in recent years.
The problem, of course, is that the label “Radical Islam” is so big as to be confusing, meaningless, or even contradictory. Much of the issue concerns what “radical” means.
While there is an advantage to using “radical Islam” as your target, once you’ve nailed down the meaning of the term, the problem is that nail and the meaning – it’s rather like Jello. Soon everyone’s shouting that this group and that group must be radical Islam, but not that other.
So when President Obama chose to use the names of groups rather than a categorical designation, he was carefully delimiting the targets to hit, which decreased the likelihood of a “civilizational war” quite a bit, and also made it less likely that we’d hit and kill people who had not attacked us – but fell under some queasy definition of “radical Islam”. By naming groups, the discussion becomes far more concrete and easy to conclude properly.
This all comes at the expense of having to identify and name multiple targets, but the incremental cost isn’t enormous – and keeps our allies happy in the region.
