Defining is Important

The "analysis" of Fort Hood is pressing full speed ahead, and as usual I am stunned by the naivete. There seems to be considerable reluctance to label the attack as "terrorist." The usual suspects are trotting out the usual phrases about "troubled individual" and "isolated loner" and "quiet neighbor" without really considering the basic issue. Is this a terrorist act?

I've been interested in terrorism for a long time. I've often thought that if I had ever pursued a PhD in political science that terrorism would be an interesting field of study. I did several papers and an independent research course in my Masters program in International Relations. I've taught a block on terrorism in Introduction to Political Science courses and I've lectured on terrorism at both Univ. of Colorado/Colorado Springs and Colorado College.

When I was in grad school, terrorism wasn't focussed on jihadists, but on socialist and liberation ideologies. The significant threats were folks like Baader-Meinhof, Red Army Faction, IRA, ETA and Shining Path. Surprisingly, a definition of terrorism developed to cover those groups is equally applicable to the current crop.

Here's what I consider to be criteria for defining a terrorist act:

1. Random--the site and victims are not usually associated with the "enemy" of the terrorist. The fact that anyone is a potential target is significant to the terror aspect of the campaign.
2. Violent--there must be considerable violence. Death and injury are required and great numbers of victims are essential. The violence must be quick and deadly.
3. Public--there must be rapid access of media to a very prominent and public location. Consider the attack timing of 9/11. The second strike was perfectly spaced to insure live coverage on all of the media. Publicity is necessary to be terrifying.
4. Ideologically driven--there needs to be an underlying ideology. This is a commonly shared belief system that is embraced by the terrorist whose goals are outside of the societal mainstream.
5. Political goal--it must be more than personal. It must be aimed at forcing a change in public policy such as foreign policy, civil rights, national identity, religious recognition, etc.
6. Outside of accepted political process--it is a non-standard method of seeking political recognition through intimidation, fear and an attempt to trigger a backlash of governmental repression in the name of security. Such repression is deemed as beneficial to build the numbers of adherents to the political ideology. The movement lacks sufficient numbers currently but with backlash, hopes to gain enough strength to become a revolution, insurgency or dominant power.

Run down the list. Can we call the actions of Major Nidal Malik Hasan a terrorist attack? I don't see how it can be labeled anything else. It wasn't discontent with the army. It wasn't pre-PTSD or secondary-PTSD, both of which are sniveling apologist terms for cowardice. It wasn't about prejudice in the work place.

It was random, violent, about Islam, seeking US withdrawal from the war on terror, and both public and outside of political process. It wasn't personal. It was terrorist business as usual.