Susan Rice last week said in a speech that we are overstating the importance of terrorism and its threat to this country. She cited WW ll and the cold war with the Soviet Union which were much greater threats. She made reference to the fact that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and nuclear warheads were directed at us for decades and we lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation.

This is all true, but what is missing is the nature of the threat we are facing. The lack of understanding of the real threat is the reason that this Administration underplays ISIS, Al Qaeda, and terrorism in general.

While the Soviet Union had the power to destroy the United States with a nuclear attack, the US had the ability to destroy the Soviet Union ten times over. An attack on the US would result in the entire Soviet Union being obliterated in minutes. It was called "mutual assured destruction". There were times during the cold war when both nations went toe to toe as was the case in the Cuban Missile Crisis. But both nations blinked and averted mutual destruction.

That threat and the aversion of that threat were based on rationality. This is not the threat today. There is no doubt in my mind and most who know this new enemy that if they got their hands on a nuclear weapon they would not hesitate to blow up New York City in a heartbeat. Where the Russians would have considered that kind an act suicidal and thus pause, the terrorists we face today would welcome suicide and kill themselves and everyone else around them. This new enemy is not rational. On the contrary, they are sub-human barbarians that lust for death and destruction, who consider torture a pleasure, and suicide a virtue.

While both the Left and the Right argue about what to call the enemy, neither have identified the nature of the enemy. The President backed up Susan Rice’s comments the next day, saying we should deal with terrorists the same way a big city mayor cut’s down the crime rate. The President sees terrorists as common criminals. He ignores that they have declared war against us and the civilized world.

In 1941 when Pearl Harbor was attacked and 2400 Americans were killed, we declared war on Japan and Germany two formidable enemies; and from having no military or vast standing army at the start, we defeated them both in four years. We eliminated a terrible evil let loose in the world once and for all. Since then both nations have become good friends and reliable allies.

What would the world be like today if we had not gone to war against that evil force?

In 2001 it wasn't 2400 Americans killed, it was 3000. Our response was far different from declaring war on our new enemy, terrorism. It was an undeclared war. The war on terrorism must be a declared war condoned and supported by the US President, the Congress, and the American people. We should ask all of those who consider themselves apart of the civilized world to join us in the extermination of this enemy. (And we should make it clear to those who do not, that they will be “remembered” after we have done their work for them). What is needed, is overwhelming force.

One way to accomplish this goal is to mobilize a “million man army”, much like the million man marches today, made up of all the nations' armies that would choose to fight and destroy terrorists. There are probably no more than about 50 thousand soldiers that make up ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other murderous groups around the world. If we surrounded them in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and wherever else they are, each nation’s army could launch a coordinated attack.

Anyone in the area with weapons should be warned to disarm or be killed. This should include all fighters in Syria and other battle grounds – good, bad, friend or foe. We should force all those fighting to cease, disarm, or be attacked. The armies of the world could easily launch a ten to one assault against them and end this thing once and for all. We won't be able to kill or stop all of them, but there will be no more ISIS, Al Qaeda, or Syrian army as exists today. The way to kill a snake is to cut its head off. Once the heads of these murderers are eliminated and their formal armies disarmed and defeated, the rest will scatter into the hills. Only then will it be a police matter for every country. The war will have been won. It could be done in a relatively short period of time.

And if they should ever try and form again we should do exactly the same thing again. This will end the "romantic attraction" for the youth to join "the cause". The youth will not flock to losers. Jihad will become looked upon as a suicide pact, not a goal. There will be no illusion of a future victory.

This is only one strategy of dealing with the mass murderers we face. But at least it is a strategy. Today no government has one. There are meetings, there are talks, and there are words of condemnation. Enough!

It's time for action. I know most will believe this is an impossible goal, and today it probably is.  But in two years we will have a new President. We may have to wait until the next election to form a consensus, but the nation has the opportunity to vote in not just a new President, we will need to vote in a great commander-in-chief.

As politicians debate what we should call the enemy, whether or not we should have more "boots on the ground", and how long it will take to train the puny armies of the Mid East to go up against the growing forces of ISIS, I suggest we all remember the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Nazi armies that attempted to take over the world 75 years ago and how the world dealt with that threat then.

Whether now or later, we are going to have to deal with these people.

Paul Nathan