September 11, 2001 is a day that everyone remembers what he or she was doing and exactly where they were standing when the United States suffered one of the most swift and deadly terrorist attacks any country has suffered through in modern history.  Many lives were taken and many lives were changed forever when the two iconic buildings fell and nearly 3,000 people lost their lives.  Unfortunately, being a part of a family who lost a loved one in the event, I have grown up experiencing the impact that losing someone in that way has had on thousands of people.  The fact of the matter is that the group of people who carried out this extremely infamous yet incredibly well planned operation, Al Queada, are amateurs compared to the Islamic terrorist organization who is currently posing a large threat to our country's national security, ISIS.  

It is not a matter of coincidence that every time there seems to be a terrorist attack in any part of the world it was most likely carried out in the name of Islam.  The spreading threat of radicalization amongst this religion is a threat that cannot be fought or controlled.  While yes it is certainly true that most Muslims, in fact maybe even as many as 95%, do not declare themselves as radicals, still leaves 5%.  This may seem small and irrelevant however when one considers that there are roughly 1.5 billion, self declared Muslims in the world, 5% starts to seem a little more relevant being it is around 75 million (Curtis).   

While the radical group ISIS is comprised of anywhere between 10,000 and 20,000 radical fighters.  Again, this number may seem small however compare that to the number of core fighters that Al Queada had, between 1,000 and 2,000, and the size of ISIS suddenly is put into perspective. Couple their size with the amount of revenue they are bringing in every day which is estimated to be anywhere between 1 million and 4 million dollars daily, the strength and size of this organization is something unlike any terrorist organization we have fought against.  With them growing in not only strength and size but also in confidence, it is only a matter of time before they attempt to bring death and destruction to our shores.  A spokesman for the organization mentioned the group's intentions to strike the United States shortly after they ruthlessly carried out the attacks in Paris.  The spokesman claimed "We swear that you will experience a similar day to the one that France experiences: since if we have struck France in its heart  --  in Paris  --  then we swear that we will strike America at its heart  --  in Washington" (Bacon).  Another militant spokesperson addressed Europe in a video released by Al Jazeera   stating "We are coming to you with car bombs and explosions. We are coming to you with explosive vests and silencers. You cannot respond to us because we are far stronger now than we were before" (Bacon). 

The intent of these animals is certainly there and it is clear that they have no discretion in keeping their intentions to themselves.  However, the debate then becomes whether or not they have the capability to carry out an attack that would cause America and/or Europe serious pain much like the events of 9/11 or the London train bombings in 2005. 

ISIS, much like any other radical Islamic extremist, desires a purely Islamic world where Sharia Law, 7th century Islamic law, is the governing body.  This is one of the main reasons why radicals have terrorized and harassed so many non-radical Muslims.  Not only are they trying to establish a world ruled by Islam, but also their true desire is to establish a world ruled by radical Islam.  It makes sense that our "ignorance of the Islamic State is in some ways understandable: It is a hermit kingdom; few have gone there and returned" (Wood). While many people believe that Al Queada had the same goal as ISIS, and ISIS is looked at as the offspring of Al Queada, the two groups have less in common than many understand.  "It's easy to be distracted, ignorant, or just plain unaware, and to end up filing every militant Islamist group away in your mind as though they're all the same. And certainly, in terms of raw bloodshed, they're tightly simpatico organizations  --  both are more than willing to kill to advance their own standing, influence, and a violently fundamentalist interpretation of their faith" (Tognotti). The fact of the matter is that not only did the goals of these two organizations but also the way in which they attempted to achieve their goals was also disparate.  "It can best be summed up like this: Al Qaeda has prioritized attacking, destabilizing, and decimating the Western world, America in particular, while the top priority of ISIS is the establishment of its own rigidly militant Islamist nation" (Tognotti). 


Unfortunately, for the United States and the west this means that ISIS will stop at absolutely nothing in order to achieve their goal.  The west represents the epitome of everything that ISIS hates, whether it is women in power or the idea of having a Wal-Mart next to a church next to a strip club.  America and the west have a sense of plurality that is despised by the radical beliefs of these extremists.  Former CIA director, Michael Morell, details in an article, which he wrote for TIME Magazine, that an attack on our homeland is more than likely.  What makes this organization so dangerous is the large number of homegrown terrorists already in the United States and the fact that "the number of ISIS followers in the US is in the thousands. [That] dwarfs the number of followers that al-Qaeda ever had" (Former CIA Director: ISIS Will Strike America). Another feat that ISIS has been able to complete is that "in such a short amount of time, ISIS has been able to recruit a force of tens-of-thousands of jihadis while also controlling territory, a feat that Al Qaeda has never accomplished by itself" (Schachtel).  While it is certain that this organization poses an eminent threat it is not the case that this is the only form of radical Islam that potentially could hurt the United States. 

The largest financier and supporter of radical Islamic terrorism throughout the world is sadly an ally of the United States.  As discovered in one of the classified government documents exposed to the public via WikiLeaks, "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide" (WikiLeaks).  Yet, despite the government knowing this as was made clear in the document, we continue to support Saudi Arabia on the political side of the world and call them our ally.  The United States is going to protect itself and take care of its citizens the way it should, then calling the largest supporter of Islamic terrorism an ally must cease instantly.  However, that might be slightly difficult for the United States to come to grips with as doing business with Saudi Arabia trumps any moral or ethical reasons to disassociate ourselves with the terrorist state.  The main business interests that connect us with the Saudis is, of course, oil.  "The kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] is the largest and most important producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the bloc that controls around 40 percent of the world's oil. Because the United States was until recently the world's top oil importer, an alliance with Saudi Arabia made geopolitical sense" (Schiavenza). Much like us, the United Kingdom also considers the Saudis as one of their biggest allies. "Britain's alliance with the regime dates back to 1915, and Saudi Arabia is the British arms industry's biggest market, receiving  pounds 1.6bn of military exports. There are now more than 200 ventures between UK and Saudi companies worth $17.5bn" (Jones).  If the two most powerful countries in the west, who are supposedly leading the fight against terrorism, are allies with the biggest supporter and financier of Islamic terrorism then obviously then it is going to hinder the United States and United Kingdom in doing their job correctly.  However, with the recent boom in shale oil extraction and exportation in the United States there very well may be a time in the near future when the relationship is no longer necessary.  Not only would it be positive for the alliance to be broken, but also with the United States no longer having to purchase extreme quantities of oil from the kingdom, their economy would take a major hit as a result.  

Some argue that the relationship with Saudi Arabia only benefits the United States and our national interest and others even go as far as to say that radical Islam does not pose a threat to this country in any way.  Even with regards to ISIS, there is a coercing, and widely accepted as acceptable, argument that the terrorist organization does not pose an eminent threat at all.  A large number of people and the majority of left wing liberals believe "ISIS is not an existential threat today, but it has at least the possibility of becoming one eventually" (Jacobson).  The question then becomes what would the terrorist organization have to do or change in order to become the threat that they currently are not.  There does not seem to be a valid response to that question other than "ISIS needs more time to fully develop and advance their organization."  There are also those who believe "  the puffing up of an ugly but limited reality into an all-encompassing, eternally "imminent" threat to our way of life as the final chapter in the demobilization of the American people" (Engelhardt).  ISIS is already one of the largest and wealthiest terrorist organizations of modern time so there cannot be that much that they need to do in order to further develop themselves.  

Another one of the arguments that liberals present is that the only reason radical Islam has become such a problem is because the United States has bred them to hate the west.  The other point to this argument is not only did the US breed them to hate the west but also contributed weaponry and money to, what was then the Mujahedeen, and eventually led to the formation Al Queada.  Although this seems to be a common belief, it is not true.  "The United States did not "create" Osama bin Laden or al Qaida.  The United States supported the Afghans fighting for their country's freedom in the 1980s - as did other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK - but the United States did not support the "Afghan Arabs," the Arabs and other Muslims who came to fight in Afghanistan for broader goals.  CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen notes that the "Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding" (Intelligence).  Therefore, the argument that the United States is one of the main reasons radical Islam has become such a global issue is simply invalid.  Former United States Senator, Warren Rudman explained it perfectly when he said "I think if we changed our foreign policy in many ways in the Middle East, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. These people hate our culture, they hate our religion, they hate our democracy. They hate us. I'm talking about the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organizations" (Why Is America The Target of Militant Islam?). There is nothing that we could have or currently could change in order to lessen the threat that we currently have.  While it is true that the United States has managed to successfully fight the war on terror, radical Islam is an enemy that does not wear a uniform and can come from absolutely anywhere.  Whether it is ISIS carrying out an attack on American soil or US citizens carrying out lone wolf attacks inspired by the propaganda of radical Islam, the threat could come from anyone anywhere.  Because of this issue the young people of America need to be educated on who and what we are fighting in order to better prepare the United States to continue dealing with the mass radicalization in the future.  Currently, the west is not doing enough in order to control the spread of the radicalization.  A "greater effort must be made to control the threat of Islamic terrorism. Indifference to the threat, let alone acquiescence, is not an option for Western survival"  (Curtis).  The effort must begin with the education of the young people in the west who are not only being targeted by the extremist propaganda but who are also going to be the ones that will have to deal with the threat in the not so distant future.  If one is educated about the ideals and values of extremism, then it might just be the case that someone who would have originally fallen victim to the propaganda might now have the understanding and wits about them to realize what exactly they are doing and, as a result, not be the prey of the radicalization.        While the long-term solution is certainly education, there is no denying the fact that something must be done now in order to lessen and eventually eliminate the threat that Islam poses right this moment.  Unfortunately, the only way to deal with this threat is to take military action.  The United States military must carry out an operation that will eliminate what is currently ISIS and their so called Islamic Caliphate in Iraq and Syria.  After the events that have taken place in the past 24 months and the lives that have been lost as a result, it is no longer acceptable to let the radicals sit at peace half way across the world and plan their next attack.  The United States has the greatest military in the world and the fight against ISIS would not be a difficult one but the fight must be taken to them before it is brought to America.  

