“Terrorism” is one of those words that means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Certainly in the current era (i.e., post-9/11) it conjures rather specific notions in the minds of most Americans.
I tend to view terrorism as follows: a type of irregular warfare directed not at the state directly, but rather at the citizens of that state for the purpose of generating fear, so that the civilian population will, in turn, pressure the state to act. Groups rely on terroristic tactics because direct confrontation with the state will not yield the desired results, i.e., direct military confrontation will not result in the defeat of the state. So, the goal becomes the spreading of fear in the general population instead, so that that fear will pressure the state to change its behavior.
One could certainly quibble with that definition. However, to me at least, a lone gunman ultimately isn’t a terrorist under that definition. And even if a lone gunman is classified as a terrorist, the “movement” (so to speak) ends with the capture or killing of said terrorist.
As such, I agree with James Joyner’s comments:
To qualify as “terrorism,” the act has to be committed to instill fear for the purpose of achieving political goals. If he’s just an angry Muslim who went nuts and started shooting people, he’s a psychopath and a killer but not a terrorist. Even if he was trying to send an “I’ll show them” message, he’s no more a terrorist than the Columbine killers, the lunatic who shot up Virginia Tech, or one of those postal workers who go on a rampage.
[...]
But even if Hasan was an al Qaeda wannabe who was trying to restore the Caliphate with his evil deeds, I’m not sure that he’s a “terrorist” in any sense that really matters. If he’s just a lone fanatic rather than part of an organized group, the difference between him and any other mass murderer is academic. Indeed, Charles Manson was politically motivated and actually had a group of followers but he’s never referred to as a “terrorist.”
Indeed, this reflects part of what I was trying to get at in my post yesterday: even if we can establish that Hasan was motivated by a radicalized version of Islam, if he was a group of one, how much does it matter in a practical sense that this was in fact that case?
The real story here may end up being (as it often is after such an event) the degree to which warning signs were ignored.
I would hasten to add that not seeing Hasan as a terrorist does not, in any way, diminish his crimes. Indeed, I think that the desire to label him as such is motivated, at least in part, by the fact that currently it is the worst label that we have in our lexicon.
Sphere: Related ContentThe views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
November 9th, 2024 at 10:42 am
[...] So far the debate here and elsewhere has been over whether Hasan was actually a terrorist or a nutty lone gunman (who happened to be Muslim who shouted “Al Akbar!” before shooting 13 people to death) — but this story will add a new dimension and most assuredly be the focus of much serious discussion, calls for investigation as well as partisan and talk show host political polemics. [...]
November 9th, 2024 at 2:15 pm
Norm Chomsky came up with a definition of terrorism by speculating what a alien may make of the word by looking at how it is used everyday and his definition was “terrorism is what ‘they’ do to ‘us’”. If ‘we’ do the same thing to ‘them’ it is not terrorism. By this standard definition he is a US citizen (unless we want to go down the path we took in WW2 with Japanese citizens but interestingly did NOT take with German citizens) and so is one of ‘us’ and cannot be a terrorist.
To me terrorism is any violent action in which the majority of dead do not have any weapons, i.e., they are non-combatants. Unfortunately no one with an army accepts such a definition and so in any armed conflict in the past 100 years the great majority of dead have always been non-combatants. But with this broad defintion Major Hasan’s actions was also a terrorist act because all the victims, though members of the military, were unarmed.
November 9th, 2024 at 5:58 pm
The soldier turning his gun on his fellow soldiers phenomenon has been all too common and included too many non-Muslims for me to think this is a terrorist thing. Rather, I think Hasan’s activities just add an extra bonus for the media to pick up on. The other incidents have been all but forgotten in the past few months. Hasan appears to be the exception rather than the rule.
I did note, however, that the narrative developing in regard to this particular event seems to be a distraction from a very real issue of the U.S. military and their screening of mental health issues. Bob Gates was saying after the Camp Liberty incident that he would look into it, and we haven’t really heard anything else about it since.
And yes, Fort Hood was having some of these very problems with mental health screenings. I was reading somewhere that one soldier was suicidal, but they had ordered him to redeploy.
November 10th, 2024 at 12:13 am
Indeed, I think that the desire to label him as such is motivated, at least in part, by the fact that currently it is the worst label that we have in our lexicon.
Well, I would say that “Hitler” is the worst label, but since that is reserved for the President, “terrorist” will certainly do.
To build on your definition, terrorism is essentially a political act, so I would add that it can only be perpetrated through some sort of conspiratorial process by a group of people for a specific political aim.
That is why McVeigh or Bill Ayers would be a terrorist. I would also call the guy who shot the doctor in Wichita because he was trying to stop a legal medical procedure which can’t be stopped by the normal political means.
There was also evidence to suggest that the Wichita guy was part of organized anti-choice groups, if I am not mistaken.
So, I would add that there has to be some group coordinated political action, as well.
November 10th, 2024 at 12:35 pm
Read Sec. 802 of the U.S. Patriot Act: Hasan was a domestic terrorist. Read the Texas Penal Code: Hasan committed a terroristic act.
When I was a JAG officer, an officer would have been administratively separated from the Army. Now, with the PC policy of the Army, the FBI and the administration, the barn door is open to massacres such as Ft. Hood.
November 10th, 2024 at 1:10 pm
In all honesty, I don’t think his actions conform to the definition in Sec. 802–unless any mass murder event fits, in which case all mass murders are terrorists. While in some ways I can see that being one’s position, it does (to my mind, at least) lessen the usefulness of the terms.
I would be curious as to a citation to the Texas Penal Code.
And while I fear that we will continue to find that many warning signs were ignored concerning Hasan, I don’t see how that can be blamed on the current administration, as many of the actions that have been cited took place under the previous president.
November 10th, 2024 at 1:16 pm
More to the point, by the way, is the question I keep asking: even if we decide that Hasan fits under Sec. 802, buy yet he acted alone, what will that ultimately mean in terms of this event vice other mass shootings?
November 10th, 2024 at 4:04 pm
Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist? If so, why him and not Hasan?