David Satter of the conservative Hudson Institute, described today’s Islamic extremism as yesterday’s Communism for Forbes. He remarks, “Although they seem different--one claims to be religious whereas the other was, supposedly, a perfect science--communism and political Islam are essentially the same. Both are radical ideologies that divide the world into the elect and the profane.”

Satter disagrees with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s response to a question about the existence of ideology posing a threat, saying that “That's so yesterday.” He affirms, “The drive of an ideology to apply a false idea on the basis of its own inner logic independent of external reality is a mortal threat to the West and will be for generations to come.”

”In fact, it is necessary to confront the terrorist ideology directly. Instead of treating freedom as an alternative to ideology, we need to attack radical Islamic ideology as opposed to sanity,” suggests Satter.

Some experts in the US have warned that the cost of fighting Islamic extremism threatens President Obama’s reform programs. However, Satter emphasizes that any reform program would fall in priority behind the goal of “neutralizing ideological fanatics who could get access to weapons of mass destruction.”

Yet, according to Michael Hughes for The Examiner, the US is losing the battle for the hearts and minds because it lacks moral imperative. “Due to a systematic failure in public diplomacy, Muslims also see the US lacking any foundational moral code whatsoever,” he deplores.

Hughes further asserts that the persistent focus on image over content in diplomatic policy since the end of the Cold War has yielded “nugatory policies that inhibit our ability to effectively promote American values.” In his opinion, the United States is so concerned with creating an image, that it doesn't substantially address “who we are.”

He proposes that if a solution against radicalism is to work, it must demonstrate the “superiority of the US mission” over the mission of radical Islamists. Hughes asseverates that Western nations need to address the “perversion of religious teachings [by extremists] to meet their political goals,” by reestablishing the moral legitimacy of their message.

“The objective shouldn't be getting Muslims to fall in love with freedom and democracy,” but rather to convince Muslims to reject extremism. He concludes, “By clearly defining our moral cause and the tyrannical nature of a pseudo-religion, America has a fighting chance of winning the hearts and minds of Muslims.”

Mark Lynch explains for Foreign Policy that President Barack Obama’s own public diplomacy nonetheless managed to reframe the scope of US-Muslim relations, paving the way towards a “serious engagement based on ‘mutual respect and mutual interests.’"

He argues that by taking political grievances of the Muslim world into account, President Obama stemmed away from the binary and antagonistic narrative promoted by Al-Qaeda of the “Us vs. Them.” In doing so, Al-Qaeda “has simply lost its ability to present itself as the avatar of generic resistance.”

Yet, Lynch remarks that Al-Qaeda’s message grows more sophisticated and the group is now developing a narrative clearly hardening the fact that Obama has not delivered on his promises, and that he hasn't really changed American policies despite his personal appeal.

Lynch believes that Afghanistan is not just a battle for victory over Al-Qaeda, but also a battle for “the mobilized Arab and Muslim publics which Obama hoped to win over.”

He views the "resistance"as non-ideological, rooted far more in perceived political grievances than in the nuances of Islamist ideology. Lynch also raises questions about how the US should engage with non-violent Islamist groups, especially when it comes to fighting radicalism. “It's hard to construct a serious engagement strategy without an answer to this,” he admits.