Adviser shows wisdom in word choice

McMaster’s expertise in combating insurgents in Iraq has taught him that use of phrases like “radical Islamic terrorism” are not helpful coming from diplomats.

The more we get to know about Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, the more he impresses.

President Donald Trump’s third pick to serve as national security adviser already is showing the kind of strong-minded independence we hoped he would demonstrate by urging the president to drop his gleeful insistence in describing jihadists as “radical Islamic terrorists,” and their grievous acts as “radical Islamic terrorism.”

If only his boss would listen. McMaster encouraged the president to drop the phrase in his address to Congress and the nation Tuesday.

Sadly, Trump stuck to his guns.

The general’s point is that, coming from the president, it’s just too loaded a term.

In the fight against jihadists, a goal for our administration, as it was in prior administrations, should be to find common ground with Muslims, and to continue to single out and denounce bad actors as corrupt manipulators, not as followers of their religion.

President Barack Obama spoke of “violent extremism” in order to accomplish these goals.

McMaster’s expertise in combating militants and insurgents in Iraq has taught him that use of phrases like “radical Islamic terrorism” are not helpful coming from diplomats, military figures and the White House.

That Trump declined to take the advice was predictable enough.

On the campaign trail, and so far as president, the blustery billionaire has been consistent in his stoking of xenophobic anger and worry about Muslims, as if somehow their religion is responsible for the likes of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

Yes, what McMaster is asking is tricky — and it’s tricky for us as journalists.

It is difficult to get past the usefulness of the shorthand phrase “radical Islamic terrorism.”

In our sphere, we use the phrase to quickly describe the enemy we face as we understandably seek to differentiate between other brands of militancy and just plain crazy lone wolves who’ve gone hopelessly off the rails.

But there is a difference in trying to be specific and tossing specificity to the wind.

Just as Trump’s use of the phrase — coupled with his actions that appear alarmingly anti-Muslim — goes too far, avoidance of the shorthand goes too far as well.

During the long run-up to the election, we agreed with Trump that Hillary Clinton, and President Obama, too, should be more willing to use the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” as Clinton later did.

Coming at the question from that perspective, we would argue that Trump could do some good by straightforwardly challenging the world’s Muslims to do more to call out those who exploit their religion. Should he engage the question from that angle, and perhaps do so with a little humility, he could put the pressure on the bad actors and remain loyal to those in his base who understandably chafe at the bewildering strictures of diplomacy.

Purging the jihadists among us requires understanding that in fighting an ideological battle, you’ve got to bring more to the fight than just guns and bombs and drones and exceptional intelligence gathering.

Winning also requires winning hearts and minds.

By gleefully blurring the lines between the evil and the peaceful, the president is forgetting this important point.

We hope McMaster remains committed to winning the argument.