Over the weekend military prosecutors officially charged Nidal Hasan for his shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Texas. The Senate has already started an official investigation, and cable news (depending on which network you watch) is done trying to convince you that this was an act of terrorism or an act of disgruntled behavior. Now comes a whole new venue for terrorism, as state side trials for the 9/11 conspirators loom. But before we move on, let us go back to Fort Hood for a second. Do we really know what terrorism is anymore? Maybe we should find out before going another year presuming we would know what it was if we saw it.

Let us look at what we can all agree is terrorism, and what is not, and then move backwards. The attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon are terrorism right?  They were not accidents. They were undeclared. They were planned for mass murder and or destruction. They were aimed at civilians and/or the innocent. And they were carried out in an effort to aggravate or retaliate against a political enemy. On the other hand Gorge Sodini, the guy who opened fire at L.A. Fitness in Pittsburgh a few months ago… well, I don’t think anyone would call him a terrorist. Though his rampage was premeditated mass murder, it was not in an effort to aggravate or retaliate against a political enemy. Maybe if L.A. Fitness gave free memberships to the Castro family or something, then we might consider this terrorism.

Why is it important to accurately identify terrorism? Because you can prevent someone from plotting but you cannot stop them from snapping. It is also important because terrorism, quite simply, is more dangerous and requires more attention. A terrorist act inspires others. It often provokes irrational disproportionate retaliation. And it sets a gruesome standard for dissent in this world.

It is also important that we distinguish Islamic Jihad from terrorism, because the attack on the World Trade Center and the attack on the Oklahoma City Federal Building are very different paradigms. Islamic Jihad right now is a greater threat than domestic terrorism. Jihad groups have popularity outside the United States, and are more unpredictable, more undetectable, and more capable of mass destruction. Islamic Jihad also has more momentum due to the geopolitical sentiment towards the United States, the West, and their involvement in geopolitical matters.

So was Nadil Hasan a terrorist or just another malcontent member of society? I guess that is what the Senate is trying to figure out right now. If they can determine that he killed all those people in an effort to make a political statement, to disrupt the spirit and progress of the U.S. Army, then it is an act of terrorism. If they can determine that he collaborated or was inspired by those involved in a similar cause, then it is an act of terrorism. It does not matter if societal revenge and personal grief was in play. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Here is the catch, though. The shootings were not on the innocent. They were on soldiers. They were unsuspecting soldiers in training — but they were soldiers. Flying a commercial plane into the Pentagon is an act of terrorism, but launching a missile at the Pentagon is really just a sneak attack. If the U.S. sent a spy to infiltrate an Al-Qaeda camp, and that spy killed everyone in camp, we would give the guy a medal. So the question in this case is really whether or not this was an act of war by an Islamic Jihadist. If just one of Hasan’s motives was to attack U.S. soldiers because he felt that they might kill fellow Muslims, then it was an act of war. And if this is the case, then the shooting must be more seriously addressed — by the U.S. Military, not the pundits. The military might have to adjust its strategy, not only on the battlefield, but within its own training facilities.

Tweet  Print This Post

Tags: terror & war // 1 Comment »