“It may be uncomfortable to admit these facts - and doing so may run certain risks - but it is true, and the costs of ignoring reality are far higher than the benefits of glossing over it,” Hamid stated.

Hamid wrote that “Islamists are not waiting for ‘infidel’ Americans to define jihad for them; they defined it themselves, a very long time ago. If Muslim leaders wish to insist that the word refers primarily to a peaceful struggle against the self, they have that option. Let them clearly and publicly denounce the current doctrine and establish a new one. That's the answer - not redefining reality.”

“Where does the word game end?” Hamid asked. “Should we also stop calling militant organizations - such as Egypt's Islamic Jihad - by their own chosen names?

“One of the most devious tactics used by the Islamists is scaring their enemy out of speaking the plain truth about this virulent strain of Islam, for fear it might alienate or offend millions of moderate Muslims. But this ensures that no one will directly confront their violent ideologies and the books that contain them - since, under Islamic Sharia law, no one is even allowed to challenge their contents.”

The 9/11 Commission Report used the term "jihad" in referencing the Islamist terrorist threat 79 times and specifically defined "jihad" as a "holy war" executed by Usama Bin Laden and his compatriots, and defined "mujahideen" as "holy warriors.”

Mark Silverberg, a foreign policy analyst with the Ariel Center for Policy Research (ACPR) and a former member of the Canadian Justice Department, has written that “the erroneous rationale given [in the Bush administration NCTC memo] is that these terms promote support for ‘extremism’ among Arab and Muslim audiences by providing religious credibility to ‘extremists’ while offending moderate Muslims.”

“The [NCTC memo] states that the term ‘jihad’ tends to ‘glamorize terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world.’”

But Silverberg noted that “it’s a fair guess that the vast majority of the global Muslim community understands quite well that a segment of their co-religionists are responsible for a considerable amount of terrorism around the globe, so they don’t need us to explain it to them, especially in generic terms which make us look foolish. Nor is anything we say going to affect jihadist credibility amongst Muslims.”

Continuing, Silverberg noted that “the argument that ‘we must carefully avoid giving bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders the legitimacy they crave … by characterizing them as religious figures, or in terms that may make them seem to be noble in the eyes of some’ is ridiculous. Few, if any, in the Muslim world care what non-Muslims think about jihadist groups like Al Qaeda, so the argument that we have to be careful in our language so as not to give bin Laden credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of Muslims is a non-starter.”

In an August 12 Washington Times op-ed, Frank Gaffney, president of the Washington, DC-based Center for Security Policy, said “it would be a grave mistake to construe the problem we face as Mr. Brennan proceeded to do in his speech at CSIS,” which is “we are at war with Al Qaeda … We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on Al Qaeda's murderous agenda."

“Unfortunately,” Gaffney wrote, “that is the stated goal of all those who adhere to what authoritative Islam calls Shariah - a number that includes many millions of people the world over. Mr. Brennan's speech made no reference to this wellspring of jihadism.

“Of course, not all those who embrace Shariah are prepared to use terror against us,” Gaffney continued, explaining that “Shariah requires … that if its adherents do not actually engage in violent jihad, they must support it through financial or other means. After all, according to Shariah, the purpose of jihad is to bring about the triumph of Islam over the entire world. Shariah commands that the faithful must use violence where possible to advance that objective, and nonviolent means where not.”

Gaffney wrote that “by failing to recognize this justification and catalyst for the threat we face, Mr. Obama and his administration effectively foreclose the possibility of countering it effectively. Worse yet, in their understandable desire not to give gratuitous offense to Muslims, the US government has repeatedly deferred to those who are most easily and most vocally offended."