I just had this exchange with Lawrence Auster (his email seemed to bounce so I don’t know if he received my response):

Cliff, you write at The Corner:

We are struggling to come up with a term that (1) accurately describes the network of ideologies and movements that have risen up with the “Muslim world” (I hate that phrase) and which seek to defeat America and its allies, a term which also (2) clearly conveys to the average person in the West that this is an enemy who must be taken seriously.

Here are several usable, accurate names which I’ve been using for years:

Jihadism,

Jihadists,

jihadist Islam.

I also just say “Islam,” “Muslims.”

Lawrence –

Among Muslims, to call someone a jihadist does not have a pejorative ring. So while the term may be accurate it’s not very useful.

To use terms such as “Islam” or “Muslims” is to cast as enemies millions of people who have not been convinced they should fight the Free World rather than join the Free World, people who should and could be on with us and against bin Laden, the Iranian mullahs, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.. More Muslims than Jews or Christians have been murdered by the groups we’re talking about. Every day in Iraq, it is these groups who suicide bombing Muslims shopping at the market or applying for jobs as policemen.

I think the evidence suggests that the number of Muslims who aren’t eager to see their children become suicide bombers, who don’t want to live in a Taliban state, is fairly large.

The number of genuine and outspoken Muslim reformers—those who will stand up to the Islamists and even fight the Islamists — is small, for many reasons. But do you really think Fouad Ajami and Amir Taheri are the enemy? Surely, you’re too intelligent for that.

Your strategy appears to include declaring war on 1.2 million people around the world. I don’t see where that is either justified or wise.