Dropping rhetoric about radical Islam will be appreciated by Muslims
Nevertheless, the administration's latest move to mend fences with Muslim communities worldwide by dropping the rhetorical references to Islamic radicalism should be welcome.
Considering the fact that the previous administration had brought America's relations with the Muslim world to one of its lowest ebbs, a shift in strategy is the least the US could do at this point in time. But words alone are not enough. More investment is needed in areas of understanding between the people of the West and those in the Islamic world.
Critics argue that Washington's latest decision ignores the role religion can play in motivating terrorism. Washington countered by saying it is trying to deny the religious legitimacy of the so-called Islamic terrorists. The truth is somewhere in-between.
Regardless, words matter. Take Thailand for instance. One thing that irritates Thai Muslims - who, by the way, see themselves as stakeholders in this country - is when officials and media don't make distinctions between their community and the Malay Muslim separatists in the three southernmost provinces.
The fact that the ongoing violence is confined to the three southernmost provinces should tell us that the conflict has more to do with the historical relations the Malay-speaking region has with the Thai state. Thai Muslims don't question the legitimacy of the Thai state. Patani Malays do and this explains the successive generations of armed separatist movements.
By dropping references to Islam when dealing with Muslim radicals or terrorists, Washington is telling the world that America is not at war with Islam. In fact, Washington has been saying that since it led a multinational effort in the early 1990s to force Iraq out of Kuwait.
But up until now Washington and the West have made little effort in terms of ideological counterattack on the extremist narratives. By waiting too long to contest the terrorists' ideological take, what were once conspiracy theories have become orthodox.
Along the way, opportunists rise up to take advantage of this tension to make a name for themselves. American-bashers love to paint the US as the entity that is out to destroy the Muslim community while conveniently ignoring the history of bloodshed between Muslim governments and Islamist groups.
As the West takes the hit from Muslim radicals, Muslim governments, who had come under the guns of the Islamic terrorists in the 1970s and 80s, sat idly by doing little to set the record straight.
But deep down inside, these Muslim countries know that eventually they will suffer the radicals' wrath. Because in the final analysis, the aim of these radicals is to overthrow their respective governments and create Islamic states so they can run the show. In this respect, Western countries and their allies that came under the terrorists guns are just a sideshow.
Indeed, no one said there was an easy answer to complex issues such as political Islam and the violence that it produces.
Perhaps the US and rest of the world community can start with acknowledging that there is such a thing as an ideology that is driving groups such as al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
Besides the acknowledgement, future effort and discussion has to separate Islam as a religion from the radical ideology that is fuelling global insurgencies. In this respect, the latest move by Washington should be welcome.
The idea here is to win over Muslim populations around the globe who may not like the fact that phrases stemming from their religion are used out of context. There is nothing more counterproductive than to lump a diverse set of organisations with different motivations under one label. Too often we get mixed up between political rhetoric and the real cause of the conflict. Attributing the violence of one's adversaries to their culture is a bit self-serving. If anything it absolves oneself of any responsibility.