Was Obama Easy on Islamic Extremism?
Nearly 8 months after the surprise result of the 2016 US presidential elections, and people continue to debate why and how the American public elected Trump. Perhaps it’s the continuing shock that a candidate riding a wave of white extremism like Donald Trump could occupy the highest office in the land, or perhaps the exhaustion from following the continuous scandal laden presidency, but some analysts continue to debate how todays’ present situation was possible. Yet, one aspect of Trump’s ascension that has rarely been questioned was the idea that Obama was soft on Islamic extremism. This was a regular idea promoted among conservatives and others that Obama’s refusal to say terms such as “radical Islam” or specifically link Islam to terrorism signaled that the former President was easy on extremist terrorism, and continues to be promoted as a talking point by prominent commentators. Indeed, in defending Trump’s ban on transgender personnel from the military, far right commentator Tomi Lauren alluded to Obama’s perceived weakness against Islamic Terrorism by tweeting, “Pres Trump dedicated to putting radical Muslims in graves whereas Pres Obama was dedicated to putting men in the ladies room. #MAGA”. Yet despite this perception, it does not match up with the realities of Obama’s policies.
A lot of ink has been spilled on whether the former President refraining from calling ISIS and Al Qaeda related extremism: “radical Islam” or something similar, was indicative of his understanding and his approach towards the issue. Yet, the idea that this term is necessary or indicative is problematic. For beginners, the term is extremely vague and leave the door open to interpretation on what constitutes ‘radical Islam’ and whether saying the term means much. The idea that somehow the President’s refusal to say a certain phrase is indicative of his approach to counter-terrorism is far-fetched. Indeed, the subject of what effect saying ‘radical Islam’ or other phrases, outside of partisan media spheres, became the topic of ridicule. Of course, there are fears of that this might spread fear of bigotry towards America’s Muslim population, a subject that many of Obama’s critics overlook and at times ridicule. While they promote the idea that the President needs to lead the conversation, they underestimate the primary purpose of the Presidential office, and the effects it has. Of course as political scientists, it would be refreshing to have a President that would take the American public through the intricate and complex debates of countering Islamic extremism, from the competing scholarship on the topic by Olivier Roy and Gilles Kepel, to the elements that make up the ideology we know as Salafi-Jihadism, its should be recognized that the primary purpose of the President is not to educate the nation on the intricacies of fighting Islamic terrorism.
Past this, there was no real indication that Obama’s approach towards Islamic terrorism was ‘soft’. If there was one large policy shift that differentiated Obama from his predecessor, it was the recognition that perhaps occupying countries within the greater Middle East would not lead to the defeat of extremism. With that primary exception, this did not stop Obama from greatly expanding the United State’s armed unmanned aerial vehicle program targeting militants throughout the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa, increasing the use of special forces in targeting militant leaders (including Al Qaeda’s former head, Osama bin Laden), and taking a much more stricter pure security approach to the topic of terrorism, there is little to suggest that Obama was less likely to strike at Islamic extremists that his predecessor, or that his approach was soft. Although it is fair to debate whether Obama took an aggressive approach to allaying the root causes of extremism in the Middle East due to his lack of democracy promotion, this by itself does little to indicate that the former President was soft on Islamic extremism.
Even one of Obama’s new approaches to terrorism, the trendy ideas behind CVE (countering violent extremism) was primarily directed at Islamic extremism. Indeed, CVE became an important pillar of Obama’s counterterrorism strategy. The Obama administration itself convened a global summit focused entirely on Islamic extremism. Despite some efforts to examine right wing terrorism in the United States under the auspices of CVE, this was remarkably more restricted than similar programs targeting Islamic extremists. Even Obama’s critics on CVE concede this point, although they do argue that Islamic extremism deserves more focus than other forms of extremism in the United States. Yet, it is difficult to argue that the Obama administration did not take the threat of Islamic extremism seriously, when one of his primary efforts to combat extremism primarily focused on Islamic extremism. For communities, that was targeted by white extremism, the dearth of attention from policymakers or the DC think tank community was shocking.
Yet despite the former administration’s relatively tough approach to terrorism, the perception remains that the former administration was ‘soft’ on Islamic terrorism. During the presidential campaign, this was continuously brought up. Compared to a presidential candidate who promised to bomb the s**t out of ISIS, or a party who included prominent members that thought that waterboarding should be considered “baptism for terrorists” (and the current President justified the use of waterboarding), Obama does seem ‘soft’ in comparison. Yet aside from polemic treatments and the temporary vigor following such comments, it does not signal that the current President takes Islamic terrorism more ‘seriously’ than his predecessor. Somehow, the idea that talking tough, or advocating war crimes means that Trump takes the threat of seriously has become salient and accepted.
Yet more than anything else, the argument is focused on the American public perception is flawed. By itself, public perception should not be taken as truth, nor is perception always accurate. There are large elements of the American public that believe in all kinds of ridiculous things, from the dangers of vaccines, perceptions of race in the country, or the effects that immigrants have on the United States. While many analysts might acknowledge that the Trump nomination and Presidency has been disastrous, and that the elements of his communication strategy has lowered the quality of public debate, it seems that on the topic of Islamic extremism, people advocate lowering the dialogue to meet Trump’s audience. Yet not only is this wrongheaded and unlikely to change much, it is also adding to the misinterpretation of Obama’s legacy. A debate can, and should discuss, whether Obama’s policies were effective or good, but it quite a stretch of the imagination to say he was soft on Islamic terrorism.
