instapinch.com

I wrote this little piece up a few weeks ago. Since then, email messages have emerged between Hasan and the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki where Hasan said “I can’t wait to join you” in the afterlife.

As details continue to emerge, I think there really is no question.

Much has been made if Army Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, should be called a terrorist. Some say the moniker is moot – he murdered 13 people in cold blood and needs to be dealt with on those matters alone. Others eschew such semantical parsing and believe it is essential to label this event for the terrorist act it appears to have been.

The fact that Hasan was an Army officer on active duty and allegedly (the word “alleged” is used in the strictest legal sense since he has not been tried nor convicted) gunned down his victims on an Army post means that he will be tried under Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ does not define nor delineate “terrorism” as a charge so why are we concerned about calling this an act of terror?

Was it? To take a critical look at this, we need to examine what exactly is the definition of terrorism. What makes up an “act of terror”?

The Department of Defense definition, coming from the Dictionary of Military Terms, defines “terrorism” as the following:

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological1

Take a close look at some of the words and phrases in that definition and see if they apply in this case. Calculated? Politically or religiously motivated? Inculcate fear? All are present, all appear there by design.

Calculated and unlawful because it is against military relations to bring not only one, much less two, personal handguns on post. Hasan carried his newly obtained weapons to the Soldier’s Readiness Center in a personal carrying bag where hundreds of soldiers were mustering for pre-deployment events.

Religiously motivated? Certainly. According to those present, Hasan screamed “Allah Akabar!” before he opened fire. Business cards found in Hasan’s apartment had the acronym “SoA” printed on them, well known shorthand for “Soldier of Allah”. In addition, Hasan’s own brief to senior Army medical personnel at Walter Reed in June of 2007 extolled the virtues of Islamic suicide bombers, underscoring that point with the comment “We love death more than you love life!” Note the collective “We”.

Inculcate fear? One cannot imagine the fear that was present when the shots began to ring out. Most soldiers are used to the sound of gunfire, but not on their home base, not in a pre-deployment medical and awards event and certainly not with families present.

One of the additional characteristics of terrorism or a terrorist act is the randomness of it. Terrorists don’t care who they kill, so long as they achieve their goal of killing. Hasan indiscriminately opened fire into a group of hundreds of soldiers and civilians. He wasn’t gunning for someone who was responsible for assigning him deployment orders. He didn’t care who he killed

Why is it important? To call it what it is. To not trivialize such an event. To not let this mass murder by a radical Islamic jihadist be consigned to being a mere criminal offense. To not shy away from addressing an act for what it was, specifically a self-described “Soldier of Allah” pulling out a FN Herstal Five-seveN 20-round pistol and a magnum handgun, shouting “Allahu Akbar!” Hasan is accused, in a calculated, premeditated act of terror, of using unlawful violence on a group of unarmed Americans, killing 13 people, including a pregnant woman.

Not wanting to call this a terrorist act is yet another step down the slippery slope of mainstreaming terrorism – making it nothing more than a routine murder or violation of a codified law. Choosing not to call this a terrorist act displays an alarming ignorance of what these displays of hatred and killing are meant to do.

Have we seen this reluctance from some on the political spectrum to call something exactly what it is? Of course. Think back to April of 1994. The African nation of Rwanda was in the midst of what could only be called a genocide. Throughout the summer of that year an estimated one million ethnic Tutsi were starved, hacked, shot, strangled, clubbed and burned to death by the Rwandan army in what could only be called ethnic cleansing. Where is the tie in? Michael Barnett, a member of the United States mission to the UN in 1994 provides some context:

By mid to late April, people in the Security Council knew it was genocide, but refused to call it such because, ultimately, one understood that if you used the term genocide, then you might be forced to act. And when someone suggested that maybe they should call a genocide a genocide, they were quietly reminded that perhaps they should not use such language. 2

Not calling this a terrorist act and not learning from all that will be learned from the facts that are found is nothing more than the politically-correct ostrich sticking its “I don’t want to deal with this” head in the sands of ignorance.

Looking at why Hasan was not red-flagged at any time by the Army or other authorities in the last 2 years when his radical tendencies began to emerge and coalesce is a discussion for another day.

For right now, however, if this isn’t “terrorism” in its most classic form, what is?

1.” DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms.” Defense Technical Information Center. 17 March 2009. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/t/7591.html [14 Nov, 2009]

2. Richard J. Norton, “Case Study: Rwanda,” Navy War College Policy Making and Process course material. (16 Nov 2004)