The president put on a trademark performance last week (he is so good at this, you forget why you disagree with him) two days after Orlando, discussing his non-use of the term "radical Islam."

He made his argument by asking rhetorical questions.  A master of misdirection, the president asked all the wrong ones so that the implied answers did not address any of the points at issue in terms of Islam's war on America (and the West).

His principal question was...

What exactly would using this label [radical Islam] accomplish – what exactly would it change?

The president defined "change" as an effect on ISIL (as he calls it).  But the change from the president using the label "radical Islam" is not on ISIL, but on us.  Why?  Because it names the enemy and thus defines the mission – taking out the enemy.  Obama has steadfastly refused to do this – the consequences of which are numerous and grievous.

ISIS vs. ISIL

The president is the only figure of note to use the term "ISIL" to designate the caliphate organized by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, which arose out of al-Qaeda in Iraq as Iraq collapsed following our final departure.  The more common term is "ISIS."  ISIS extends over territories in Iraq and Syria, hence the term "ISIS," which means the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Obama uses the term "ISIL," which did not catch on with anybody but himself.  Although designating the same organization as ISIS, the term has a distinctly different meaning.  ISIL stands for the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

What is the Levant?  The Levant includes Syria, so we are good there.  But it also includes Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel.  Lebanon has a Christian community and thus is not an "Islamic state" yet.  Jordan is a kingdom with Islam as the primary religion, but it remains very much independent of ISIS.

And Israel.  Israel is neither part of ISIS nor an Islamic state.  But by using the term ISIL, Obama is putting Israel in Dar al-Islam – the Land of Islam – presumably temporarily occupied by invaders who came from who knows where.  Using the term ISIL is a hostile act toward Israel.

The mission of the Muslim assault on America is to replace the Constitution with the Koran.  How much of the Muslim community supports this goal is not clear.  The spearhead of this mission is the jihadis, which we misleadingly name the "radicals."  They are radical in our eyes, but not their own.  They are simply part of the ummah, the Muslim community, which is worldwide.

Islam has always been a religion of war.  It was designed that way.  Mohammed tried a peaceful, contemplative doctrine in Mecca for 13 years.  He got around 1,300 followers.  Then he moved to Medina and changed over to preaching conquest, savagery, and slavery.  And he conquered the Hijaz (territory in northwest Arabia that includes Mecca and Medina).  As constructed by Mohammed, Islam is a community, of which jihadis are the most outstanding members, and who subdue nonbelievers, loot their assets, make them serfs – dhimmis required to pay an annual tax – and move on to the next conquest.

Islam went into eclipse after the failed siege of Vienna in 1683.  It was held in abeyance for 300 years due to the superior technology of the West.  It reawakened as a force in history following the success of the mujahideen in pushing the Soviets out of Afghanistan.  (We think it was the CIA supplying them with Stingers.  They think it was themselves.)

Osama bin Laden institutionalized the victory by creating al-Qaeda.  It was universalized in the Middle East by the breakout of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2011 from suppression by strongmen such as Mubarak, Saddam Hussein, and Gaddafi.  This was misleadingly called the Arab Spring and was supported by the Obama administration.

Now restored to its militancy, the Muslim project, as we might call it, is to become the dominant force on the planet.  The soldiers – jihadis – who spearhead this project secure themselves direct entry to Paradise if they are killed in jihad.

So far as anybody can tell, Obama supports the Muslim project.  In terms of his presidency, this goes all the way back to his apology speech in Cairo in 2009, with the Muslim Brotherhood present over the objections of the Egyptian government.  (Obama continues the practice of liberals of denying what he is doing, because liberals know their objectives would not be supported by the public.  Thus, he denied in debate with Mitt Romney in 2012 that he had engaged in an apology tour in the Middle East when one would have thought he was proud of it, it being the first step in his changing America's presumably domineering foreign policy.)

Obama's refusal to use the term radical Islam is within this context (part of which is his statement in the U.N. that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam").  As we have experienced attack after attack from jihadis here in the U.S., Obama has characterized these attacks as workplace violence, or violent extremism, pretending that the motivation of the purveyor of violence needs to be discovered.

By treating Islam as a quietist religion – a communion between the soul and the Almighty – Obama has been able to pretend that attention paid to Islamic connections of possible jihadis is nothing but bigotry.

This attitude has had serious consequences.  Training manuals for both the FBI and the CIA have been cleansed of any material deemed offensive to Islamic groups.  This has meant in practice that the FBI cannot follow leads that are based on the Muslim affiliations of the suspect.

The FBI was tipped off by the Russian FSB (successor to the KGB) that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a dangerous person.  The FBI followed up, but once it ran into Tsarnaev's involvement in a mosque, it closed the file.  Scrutinizing Tsarnaev based on his Muslim affiliation would be prejudice – "not who we are."

Details are still developing, but we see this also with Omar Mateen.  The FBI interviewed him twice but dropped him as a suspect because of his Muslim affiliation, which, to an informed person, would make him more of a danger but in the Obama administration put him out of bounds.

And finally, we have the refusal of the president to connect the dots publicly.  He uses the term violent extremism to describe jihadi attacks on the public during his administration.

So we can answer the president's question:

What exactly would using this label [radical Islam] accomplish – what exactly would it change?

• It would identify and acknowledge our enemy and the tactics he is using against us.

• It would reverse the foolish and self-defeating policies of the administration in purging both the material and the mindset of Islamic aggression toward America from our federal agencies.

• It would name the enemy and suggest the mission – defeating the enemy – to anyone who had the best interests of the country at heart.

• It would redefine attacks on the American public from unfocused violent extremism to purposeful jihadism.

In short, it would turn our policies around 180^o.