One popular narrative on the American right is that the West is engaged in a “clash of civilizations” with Islam. Some phrase it in terms of Islam being at war with the West. Not surprisingly, the terrorist groups that self-identify as Muslim would also like it to be a war between all of Islam and the West.

There are various psychological reasons to embrace this narrative. Seeing oneself on the side of good in an epic struggle is appealing. This provides meaning and a sense of significance often lacking in life. There is also the sickly-sweet lure of racism, bigotry and religious intolerance. These are strong motivating factors to see others as an implacable enemy—inferior in every way, yet also somehow demonically dangerous and devilishly clever.

There are also powerful motivations to get others to accept this narrative. Leaders can use it as political fuel to gain power and justify internal oppression and external violence. It also makes an excellent distraction from other problems. As such, it is no surprise that both American politicians and terrorist leaders are happy to push the West vs. Islam narrative. Doing so serves both their agendas.

While the psychology and politics of the narrative are both important, I will focus on the idea of the West being at war with Islam. One obvious starting point is to try to sort out what this might mean.

It might seem easy to define the West—this could be done by listing the usual suspects, such as the United States, France, Germany, Canada and so on. However, it can get a bit fuzzy in areas. For example, Turkey is predominantly Muslim but is part of NATO and considered by some to be part of the Western bloc. Russia is not part of the classic West but has been the target of terrorist groups. But perhaps it is possible to just go with Classic West and ignore the finer points of this war.

Establishing the war is easy. While many terrorist groups that claim to be fighting for Islam have declared open war on the West, most Muslims have not done so. As such, the West is only at war with some Muslims and not with Islam. Likewise, Islam is not at war with the West, but some Muslims are. Muslims are also at war with other Muslims—after all, Daesh killed more Muslims than it killed Westerners. The West could, of course, establish a full war on Islam on its own. For example, President Trump could get Congress to declare war on Islam. Or just start launch a vast not-war on Islam by himself.

There are  practical concerns about taking the notion of a war on Islam seriously. One concern is the fact that while the are some predominantly Muslim nations that are hostile to the United States (such as what is left of Iran), there are others that are nominal allies (such as Jordan, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) and even one that is part of NATO (Turkey). As such, a war against Islam would entail a war against these allies. That seems morally and practically problematic.

A second concern is that many friendly and neutral countries have Muslim populations. These countries might take issue with a war against their citizens. There is also the fact that the United States has Muslim citizens and waging a war on United States citizens could also prove somewhat problematic both legally and practically. Although, as the numerous apparent crimes committed show, the Trump regime appears to have little regard for the law and practical concerns.

Donald Trump has shared his various thoughts on this matter. He once considered requiring Muslims to be registered in a special database and to identify their faith. Religious freedom, one suspects, is seen as applying to only the right religions.

A third practical concern is determining the victory conditions for such a war. “Classic” war typically involves trying to get the opposing country to surrender or agree to conditions that end the war. However, a war against a religion would be inherently different. One horrific victory condition might be the elimination of Islam, either through extermination or conversion. This sort of thing has been attempted against faiths and people in the past; we now usually call this genocide.

However, such exterminations are morally wicked—to say the least. Alternatively, Muslims might be rounded up, as happened to Japanese Americans in WWII and kept in concentrated areas. In addition to being impractical, this is also morally horrifying.

Victory might be defined in less extreme ways, such as getting Islam to surrender and creating agreements to behave in ways that the West approves. This is, after all, how traditional wars end. There are, of course, many practical problems here. These would include the logistics of Islam’s surrender (since there is no unified leadership of Islam) and working out the agreements across the world. It is unclear what it would be for an entire religion to surrender.

Or perhaps there is no intention to achieve victory: the war on Islam is used to justify internal suppression of rights and liberties, to manipulate voters, to ensure that money keeps flowing into the military-security complex, and to provide pretexts for military operations. As such, the war will continue until another opponent can be found to fill the role of adversary.  The USSR once served ably in this role, but Trump seems to like Putin too much to use Russia as an enemy. China has some potential, but our economies are bound together.

One reasonable counter to the above is to insist that although the ideas of a war with Islam and a clash of civilizations are real, a more serious approach is a war with radical Islam rather than all of Islam. This narrower approach could avoid many of the above practical problems, assuming that our Muslim allies are not radicals and that our and allied Muslim citizens are (mostly) not radicals. This would enable the West to avoid having to wage war on allies and its own citizens, which would be  awkward.

While this narrowed scope is an improvement, there are still some obvious concerns. One is working out who counts as the right (or wrong) sort of radical. After all, a person can hold to a radical theology yet have no interest in harming anyone else. But perhaps “radical Islam” could be defined in terms of groups that engage in terrorist and criminal acts that also self-identity as Muslims. If this approach is taken, then there would seem to be no legitimate justification for labeling this a war on Islam or even radical Islam. It would, rather, be a conflict with terrorists.

There are some practical reasons for avoiding even the “war on radical Islam” phrasing. One is that using the phrase provides terrorist groups with propaganda: they can claim that the West is at war with Islam, rather than being engaged in conflict with terrorists who claim to operate under the banner of Islam. The second is that the use of the phrase alienates and antagonizes Muslims who are not terrorists, thus doing harm in the efforts to win allies (or at least  keep people neutral).

It might be objected that refusing to use “radical Islam” is a sign of political correctness, DEI, wokeness or cowardice. While this is a beloved talking point for some, it has no merit as serious criticism. As noted above, using the term merely serves to benefit the terrorists and antagonize potential allies. Insisting on using the term is a strategic error that is often driven by bravado, ignorance and intolerance. As such, the West should not engage in a war on Islam or even radical Islam. Fighting terrorists is, of course, another matter entirely.