Since ISIS has become a bigger threat than Al Queda, we have heard President Barack Obama, and his administration, refer to them as ISIL rather than ISIS. Obama is not the only one using this term, several news organizations, including the Associated Press, and House Democrats also have adopted the use of ISIL. Many, however, continue to use ISIS, including this website. So, why do some, including the President, chose ISIL where so many Americans continue to use ISIS? One conspiracy theory after another is flooding the internet, but hopefully by understanding the definition, we could come to a logical conclusion.
ISIS’s History of Name Changes
ISIS has changed its name multiple times since it began in 1999. In the beginning, their name was Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. When they pledged “allegiance to Osama bin Laden” in 2004, they switched their name to al-Qaeda in Iraq (or AQI). A couple of years later, they replaced AQI to the Islamic State in Iraq. In 2013, the organization declared themselves as the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham — or ISIS.
So, where does ISIL come from? The acronym stands for the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. In Arabic, the name is pronounced as,
“Ad-Dawla as-Islamiya fi’l-Iraq wa’sh-Sham (الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام, known in Arabic by the acronym Da‘sh).”
The National Review explained,
“All but the final word are simple to translate. Sham, usually translated as Greater Syria, has no exact equivalent in English. Greater Syria is an amorphous geographic and cultural term like Midwest or Middle East that lacks official boundaries. It always includes the modern states of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan, as well as the Palestinian Territories, but some also consider it to include parts of Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, and even all of Cyprus. Inasmuch as there has never been a sovereign country called Sham, the term’s geographic meaning remains a theoretical debate…Because ‘Greater Syria’ is heavy on the tongue, Da‘sh’s name gets simplified to ‘Syria.’ But that name being so easily confused with the existing state of Syria which first came into existence in 1946, others choose to translate ‘Sham’ as ‘Levant.'”
In other words, the usage of ISIS or ISIL comes down to an interpretation of Arabic to English and whether you choose to refer to just Syria or the archaic geographic word used for the countries above. On each interpretation, the National Review stated,
“[B]oth translations are accurate, both are correct, and both have deficiencies — one refers to a state, the other has an archaic ring. For reasons unknown to me, the executive branch of the U.S. government adopted the ISIL nomenclature and its staff generally use this term.”
The Obama administration is not the only government who uses this term, the British government also uses ISIL over the other choices. France, on the other hand, uses the word Daesh to refer to the terrorist organization. They follow Arabic news groups who also use Daesh — the Arabic acronym for ISIL.
With the multiple name changes, it is clear that there are a variety of ways to refer to this destructive terrorist organization. The name changes will also likely continue. After all, in 2014, ISIS again announced another revision — they wanted the world to refer to them simply as the Islamic State (IS).
Of course, right-wing conservatives have their point of view about why the Obama administration refers to the group as ISIL.
The Conspiracy Theories
If you google “Why Obama prefers ISIL over ISIS” you will get website after website of conspiracy theorists attempting to answer this question. Right-wing conservatives have attached Obama’s use of ISIL to their existing conspiracy theory that Obama is a a sympathizer for the terrorists’ cause and unabashedly against the state of Israel. Glenn Beck fueled this fire when he stated,
“[B]y the President saying ‘this is ISIL,’ he is sending the message: I know who you are. I know what lands you are planning to take…The President knows who these guys are. [But] he’s not telling you who they are. He’s trying to downplay that they are putting together a caliphate from Egypt to Iran. It does not include Israel. Maybe we should have a real frank conversation about what’s really going on.”
Rush Limbaugh also joined in with his own theory. On his radio show this week, Limbaugh correctly defined what ISIL stands for — that the ‘L’ refers to the Levant, a region that also includes Israel. Of course the truth stopped there when Limbaugh stated that ISIL,
“[I]nclude[s] Israel, which, to these people, Israel is a fraud. Israel doesn’t deserve to be there. That’s all Palestine and that’s what I think is behind the pronunciation, this insistence that it be called ISIL.“
He then goes on to state his opinion on why Obama uses ISIL when so many others use ISIS instead:
“I think he’s got a different audience for the term. I don’t think he’s talking to the American people. I think he’s talking to Iran. We just heard Walid Phares say that Obama’s linkage here is not to oppose ISIL because Iran supports ISIL, and it’s all to do with the sectarian violence between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites and the fact that Iran capitalizes on the sectarian violence, does not want it solved because they hope to end up controlling the entire Levant — uh, sorry — region.“
These conservative voices are only telling half the truth, but their speculation is illogical, based on the assumption that Obama is not serving the American public, rather somehow supporting the extremists’ cause.
Logical Explanation
The National Review has argued that when it comes down to it, “there is no meaningful geographic or political difference between the two translations” of ISIS v. ISIL. I have to agree. Irregardless of the conspiracy theories on the conservative talk shows and online blogs, whether you refer to the organization as ISIS, ISIL, IS, or Daesh, it all leads to the same terrorist organization.
From what I have read, Obama has not come out and stated exactly why he picks one name over the other. Thus, even liberals are subjected to speculation on why Obama uses ISIL over ISIS. Liberals, however, will not create ridiculous conspiracy theories. Instead, our speculation is based on research and logic. As one blogger pointed out:
“Is it important that you and I know the difference, or that we call it by the correct name? Perhaps not. We simply want the movement crushed before it can do more damage. But it is important that the President, who is commanding the military effort against the group, knows the difference. If a President mistakenly thought that these terrorists were limited to just Iraq and Syria, he would have a hard time leading the fight to eradicate it. So Obama makes a point of using the geographically correct terminology as a reminder that this isn’t a two-nation problem. And that’s where he gets into trouble with those who don’t like knowledge.
The reasonable conclusion would be this: because President Obama knows the finer points of the terrorist group he’s been blowing to smithereens, it means the rest of us don’t have to study up on the details. But the most ignorant of Americans see it differently. They’re bothered that the President is using a term they don’t know; they worry that he’s smarter than they are; it makes them feel insecure. They liked it better under the last President, a dummy, because it made them feel smart in comparisons. They can’t be bothered to do ten seconds of googling to find out whether Obama has gotten it right, because they’d rather just assume he’s wrong. That way they can pretend he’s even more ignorant than they are.”
This conclusion is reasonable considering that as President of the United States, who has multiple military and foreign affairs advisers at his disposal, is well informed on his use, and/or strategy behind the use, of ISIL. Obama’s use of ISIL is not because he is a terrorist sympathizer, is pandering to Iran so not to offend them, or is somehow less American, but he uses ISIL because he understands the difference of what word means.
Knowing the difference, he and his administration, along with other world leaders, continue to use ISIL instead of the more commonly used ISIS. Their use of this word should not matter. What should matter is what they are doing about this terrorist organization.
Our Focus Should Be Less On the Name And More On Terrorism
“Let’s not worry how to translate Da‘sh and concentrate our efforts instead on ridding the world of this barbaric menace.”
Seriously, who cares about how we refer to this terrorist organization? Our only concerns should be how we eliminate the existing threat of ISIS and how we can prevent future terrorist organizations from forming. This is where our debates should be centered, and not on their name.
Featured image by The White House under a United States Government Works License
