Comparing the Threat of Communism to that of Terrorism

The difference between the two threats of communism and terrorism is largely a matter of perception. Communism appeared to the untrained eye to be a monstrous, evil, tyrannical machine capable of annihilating its opposition. Terrorism on the other hand is to the objective viewer a mere anathema, as already noted, a nuisance.

While it is impossible to know exactly what outcomes other strategies might have produced against the Soviet Union, the elevation of the level of interest the communist threat posed to the United States to that of Survival seems to have been a perfectly reasonable counteraction. Communism has largely been relegated to the trash heap of history although Socialism has replaced it and seems to be proving even deadlier than communism ever was. The communist threat was an overt, outside, bellicose enemy which was in-your-face and easily identifiable, and nearly as easily contested. The socialist threat seems to be more an invisible parasite which undermines free states from the inside out with promises of utopia.

Terrorism, as merely a “nuisance”, has the power to operate within, even benefit from free societies. It is not an overt bellicose enemy which is easily identified. Terrorism lurks in the shadows and behind closed doors, protected by the very ideals it seeks to destroy. The threat is well known but vaporous, and easily forgotten after lengthy periods of inactivity. The terrorist would be pleased to utterly destroy the United States and subjugate everyone therein, as would the communist before him. The communist regime in the Soviet Union would debate, negotiate, communicate, and deal with the United States. The Soviet Union had form and function. Terrorism however is an indefinable, elusive enigma, with no form or coherent function. Every terrorist entity operates differently, with different command and control structures, different ideologies, and different means to the ultimate end. They are as varied as the people within them.

Depending on the person’s world view, each individual would answer this question differently. However, communism was never in open war against the United States, something the common terrorist boasts about. If not so, he could hardly be called a terrorist. Terrorism is in open war with free societies around the world. The threat posed by terrorism is a definite one. To the United States, terrorism may be merely a vital level interest, but to Pakistan or Indonesia, terrorism is clearly an interest of survival. The threat of terrorism is real and the war terrorists wage against the United States is undeniable. Eventually, if not effectively countered, terrorism will overrun and destroy the United States. The threat is indeed dynamic, for this reason it is imperative that the United States combat terrorism on every viable front, in order to prevent its progression from a vital interest to a survival interest.

American Interest in Combating Terrorism

Islamic extremism constitutes a real and persistent threat to the national security of the United States, both at home and abroad. The level of the threat is debatable, however, and its interpretation will vary from one entity to another. For example, a liberal activist in San Francisco probably interprets the threat of Islamic extremism differently than does a Marine stationed in Kandahar, Afghanistan. The general threat posed by Islamic extremism has certain indisputable factors, however, by which it is relatively simple to categorize. Islamic extremism is a threat of vital interest to the United States.

As explained by Nuechterlein, the threshold of vital interest is breached when there exists a credible threat to the security of the United States and “the leadership refuses to compromise” on negotiations to determine the outcome (Nuechterlein 2001. 18). It is clear, at least insofar as the George W. Bush administration was concerned, that the leadership refused to compromise on the outcome of the conflict between the competing ideologies of Islamic extremism and Democracy. The Bush administration determined that military force was a rational and necessary means of defeating the ideologies of Islamic extremism.

The specific threats posed by Islamic extremism are debatable as well. The objectives of modern Islamic extremism are as varied as the groups which espouse it. An indisputable thread which weaves throughout these entities is the use of violence against civilians to accomplish the group’s objectives. This factor of violence in conjunction with the secretive and pervasive nature of Islamic extremist groups, presents a threat which, if not countered, could infiltrate and undermine the foundation of the United States of America in a way which no threat has heretofore been able to accomplish.

Assuming the general objective of Islamic extremism is to eliminate the threat to Islamic culture in the Middle East and elsewhere posed by western ideologies, one might reasonably assume that the ultimate victory for this extremism would be a defeated and deflated United States, it being the banner-bearer of western ideologies. The greater the defeat, the better for Islamic extremism. A defeated and deflated United States would be one where its government and people are unwilling and unable to project its values, power, and influence throughout the rest of the world. This extremism has demonstrated a desire and an ability to inflict serious, even catastrophic loss on the homeland of the United States. For this reason, the leadership of the United States can reasonably assume that Islamic extremism, willing to use violence, even extreme violence, to accomplish its objectives, poses real and credible threat to the national security of the United States.

The four tiers of national interest, as defined by Nuechterlein, include survival, vital, major, and peripheral. A survival interest is one by which the survival of the state is immediately and clearly at stake, of which Islamic extremism is obviously not one. A vital interest is one by which the survival of the state may be at stake and it is determined by the powers that be, that immediate action is necessary to defend the state to insure its survival. A major interest is one by which the interests of the state are or may be threatened either at home or abroad but not to the extent that the survival of the state is in jeopardy. A peripheral interest is one by which assets of the state or private citizens of the state may be in jeopardy but which will not impact the general operation of the state (Nuechterlein 2001. 18-19). Islamic extremism is clearly less than a survival interest, but greater than a major interest. Islamic extremism is a vital interest to the United States because of the demonstrated will and ability it has to inflict damage on the United States’ homeland.


Nuechterlein, Donald E. AMERICA RECOMMITTED: A Superpower Assesses its Role in a Turbulent World. Lexington Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky. 2001.

Terrorism: Law Enforcement or Military Issue

To try to define terrorism as either strictly a law enforcement or a military issue seems to me to be an unwise attempt to make black and white a very grey issue. Terrorism has no widely accepted definition and, as the recent shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, demonstrated, isn’t likely to get one anytime soon. For this reason I believe it important to answer this question based on the specifics of each case.

Not only is it problematic to try to define terrorism, it defies reason to try to lump responsibility and jurisdiction for such vastly different instances as (just as mere examples) the Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City and the attack on the USS Cole in the Port of Aden, both of which were obvious cases of terrorism, under the same entity. For the same reason, it is difficult to grant explicit jurisdiction to fight terrorism to either the military or to law enforcement. Terrorism is such a general term, with meaning differing from person to person, that doing so would be utterly foolish.

In many instances, the military has no jurisdiction, nor place, in dealing with terrorism. The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing is a prime example. I would be appalled to find military investigators or intelligence units investigating such an incident within the bounds of the United States. In this and other like instances, terrorism is clearly under the purview of law enforcement, either local or federal.

On the other hand, the military has similar jurisdiction when dealing with battlefield components of terrorism or terrorist acts perpetrated by or against its own personnel, such as the USS Cole or the Fort Hood example.

The question has only been muddled by the conflict between right and left leaning politicians with specific agendas within the United States. It was begun by the Bush administration’s declaration of war on terrorism, defining the conflict between democracy and totalitarianism as a war. It might more accurately be called an ideological struggle, a struggle between conflicting, mutually exclusive ideologies. If the whole “war” thing had never been introduced, it might have simplified things. Ironically, I don’t recall any real quandary when it came to dealing with “prisoners” of the cold war, once again a conflict between ideologies.

The conflict then is what to do with “terrorists” once our military has taken them captive in a foreign combat zone. I don’t believe the issue has ever been what to do with American citizens, or even foreign nationals, arrested on US soil, by US law enforcement, for either planning or executing a terrorist attack. This is where it gets fuzzy in regard to US national security. If there is insufficient evidence to convict a “terrorist” for criminal activity, and yet, the person was picked up fighting alongside terrorists and against US military personnel, is it rational and reasonable to just send the person back to where he’s from, knowing that he may just take up arms again against US military personnel?

I believe the answer is, if it is indeed a “war”, the international laws regarding the conduct of war, ought to be applied. If the “war” is still ongoing, the person ought to be held as a prisoner of that war until its conclusion. If it is something short of war, the person ought to be sent back to where he’s from. My critics will say, “If you send him back, he’ll just kill again.” They’ll also argue that by being held indefinitely, he may have developed animosity toward America where there was none, and so, he may be dangerous now when he wasn’t before. To my critics I would cite the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The critics will then say, “those rights are reserved for American citizens.” To that I would say, “ALL MEN…..” not just American citizens. It is contrary to the moral standard of America to hold individuals indefinitely, without giving them the right to apply for their liberty, or being able to prove their innocence. That's what Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein would do.

The American Intelligence Community is among the best in the world, if not THE best. There ought to be a very rational, and legal, means of monitoring these individuals, and using them, once tossed back into the population, to further develop America’s knowledge of Islamic extremist networks. Perhaps it seems simplistic, after all, I’m not an expert in such things, but biologists do this sort of thing all the time. They tag birds, animals, and even fish, then monitor their movements once back in the wild. There ought to be a great way of taking advantage of the situation and the people America has in its custody.