The New Republic

"...We need,” he says, “to get the military and the foreign policy right.” But we also need, he preaches, to change “the sense of hopelessness” and the “simple despair of young men” in societies like Pakistan’s. Zakaria concludes: “We need to help the young men you’ve just watched embrace life rather than death.” Zakaria is a twit. Murderers are responsible for their actions, not their victims.

- malahat

November 19, 2009 at 4:39pm

Of course we should help said young men embrace life rather than death. But, if they have already decided to embrace death by killing people (or attempting to do so), then we should put them in death's embraces as quickly as possible. I think that Zakaria is too smart not to agree with the latter sentiment, his silly post-script notwithstanding.

- wildboy

November 19, 2009 at 4:56pm

Is Hasan a murderer? Yes Is he mentally instable? More than likely Was he incompetent? That's becoming more and more apparent. Is he a terrorist? Yes, in the same manner that Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Theodore Kaczynski, John Allen Muhammad, etc. are terrorists -- lone mentally disturbed men driven to violence by their ideology. But, Marty, that headline is just offensive. The Ft. Hood incident has completely unhinged your mind. Take a deep breath, step away from the keyboard, and let the inexorable wheels of military justice grind this bastard into pulp.

- zardoz67

November 19, 2009 at 5:06pm

"Zakaria concludes: “We need to help the young men you’ve just watched embrace life rather than death.” How is it the role of the West to wrest these benighted young men from the prison imposed on them by their mullahs? Isn't it a society's self-responsibility to step away from the abyss?

- noga1

November 19, 2009 at 5:45pm

Marty would do all of his readers a service if he would post his definition of the word terrorism. Cards on the table. I define terrorism along the following lines: 1. Acts of war directed at civilian populations without regard for accepted norms of military conduct, particularly when conducted by non-uniformed or irregular forces. 2. Criminal acts in which the perpetrator intends his act not as an end unto itself but as an instrument to influence state policy or public opinion through intimidation. Hasan's actions were clearly not terrorism under the first of my definitions; too little evidence is yet publicly known to qualify for my second definition, but I will not be surprised if that case is soon proved. That's what I mean by terrorism, and why I remain cautious about Hasan. Perhaps if Marty would share his definition of terrorism, those skeptical of his recent ravings may be persuaded.

- rhubarbs

November 19, 2009 at 5:57pm

I agree with rhubs -- there seems to be a real (willed or involuntary) confusion going on in these threads between "terrorism" as a set of actions or events designed to produce terror among a civilian population, and "terrorism" as a planned strategy aimed at an identifiable political goal (no matter how ominous or unrealistic) and uses armed attacks, explosives, random killings, etc to put that strategy into operation. Under the first definition, for example, the DC snipers would be included; under the latter, not.

- ironyroad

November 19, 2009 at 6:06pm

Yes, I agree what Fareed said was glib, but to be honest words do kind of fail in the face of such senseless barbarity. Just recently, in Peshawar, the Taliban blew up a truck in a market killing many innocent of their own fellow muslims and countrymen, and doubtless they considered it a great victory. I have no words to offer them, all I can think is that we have to kill them, not even to save us from them, but to save their own people from them. It seems more and more inevitable there will be a nuclear war between India and a Pakistan controlled by the maniacs. And yes Zardoz, that is another terrible headline of Marty's. Glib, smug, and tasteless all at once. 170 people dead, and he gets snarky?

- blackton

November 19, 2009 at 6:24pm

irony, I suspect the confusion here -- well, not "confusion," since in Marty's case it seems to be a deliberate conflation based on ethno-religious animus -- between "terrorism" and "jihad." Not all acts of what we might call "jihadism" -- a Muslim extremist doing violence in the name of his religion -- are terrorism. Some jihadism takes the form of simple warfare. Some takes the form of guerilla warfare. Some takes the form of war crimes. Some takes the form of simple criminal behavior. A major subset, but only a subset, takes the form of terrorism.

- rhubarbs

November 19, 2009 at 8:16pm

rhubarbs, for the sake of my blood pressue and my mental wellbeing, I do not spend much time down in The Spine, but from my cursory reading here, I think this is Marty's definition: "Terrorism is any antisocial act commited by a Muslim, regardless of context or circumstances. Because they are Muslims. And Muslims are evil. And since I'm a Jew, I know what I'm talking about, and you don't."

- zardoz67

November 19, 2009 at 8:29pm

rhubarbs, I think that's an excellent definition: terrorism has a political motive and is directed at civilians.

- malahat

November 19, 2009 at 8:31pm

"Zakaria concludes: “We need to help the young men you’ve just watched embrace life rather than death.” At the end of a documentary that lays bare the nihilism and pitilessness of Islamist terrorists as they laid waste to Zakaria’s own city, why on earth would he say a thing so pious, and so ineffably glib?" How does he propose we do this? Ask Muslims governments to hand over their terrorists potential or actual and if they refuse invade the Muslims world and set up group therapy sessions guided by people like Major Hasan? This comment isn't just glib, it's also impractical and it's the kind of foreign policy Zakatia rightly opposed during George W Bush's presidency.

- jacksondyer

November 19, 2009 at 8:47pm

...Cards on the table. I define terrorism along the following lines: 1. Acts of war directed at civilian populations without regard for accepted norms of military conduct, particularly when conducted by non-uniformed or irregular forces. 2. Criminal acts in which the perpetrator intends his act not as an end unto itself but as an instrument to influence state policy or public opinion through intimidation.... Here’s what I understand is the FBI’s definition of terrorism: “The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” It’s better than Rhubarb’s because it’s more concise and straightforward and without confusing superfluity that verges on the internally incoherent. And it doesn’t take refuge in purposeful incompleteness with phrases like “along the following lines”. The FBI just straight up defines it. As for Rhubarbs’s definition, a few points: 1. Why distinguish between acts of war and criminal acts instead of going right to acts of a certain kind, prost and poshit, and thereby avoiding unnecessary and potentially distracting distinctions? 2. Isn’t it wrong to qualify what we are now just calling acts of certain order with the otiose verbiage “without regard for accepted norms of military conduct” since that otiose verbiage is preceded by the language “directed at civilian populations”? Being a lawyer and formerly a sometimes analyzer of great poetry, I start from the premise that in what passes as a formal definition every word means something. Here the implication is that some acts of war can be directed at civilian populations. They in fact never can, according to any reasonable conception of the law of war. Lawful acts of war are always directed at military targets. That can get complicated as when in Gaza for example fighters are embedded within civilian populations. But in such a circumstance, as well rehearsed in these cyber pages, Yadlin, Kasher, Walzer, Margalit and the magisterial Moshe Halbertal all when agonizing over this circumstance make the distinction between acts gratuitously aimed at civilians and acts aimed at fighters which have, sometimes significant, collateral consequences. The FBI rather elegantly and incisively side steps all this confusion by starting with “unlawful”—which gets rid of all the gobbledygook of “military norms etc.—and then puts the key emphasis where it needs to be: intimidation or coercion to achieve a non military end. 3. Rhubarbs also adds confusion by, in his first definition, stressing “when conducted by non-uniformed or irregular forces.” The FBI definition wisely avoids this singling out of a particular class of perpetrators. Why do so? For that raises the implication that regularl or uniformed forces are peripheral to terrorist action. There is no warrant for this suggestion and it can only serve to create confusion. 4. The second definition I suggest extends the confusion ushered by the first one. Now we are directed to think separately not only about acts of war and criminal acts but also about groups and individuals. The FBI definition makes these separations unnecessary. 5. Paradoxically for all the use of two definitions and all the raised distinctions, the second definition is unhelpful in raising more questions than it answers. If I embark on a series of misdemeanors say stealing from parking meters not because I want the dimes, nickels and quarters but because I want my municipality to make parking free I am a terrorist under the second definition. But not under the FBI definition: for it my acts have to involve the use of force or violence; my force or violence must be directed at persons or property; my purpose must be coercive or intimidation; and there must be a causal thread raveling out of my force or violence directed at persons or property to my intention to intimidate or coerce the state or some part, or all of, the civilian population, in an effort to achieve my political or social objectives. Virtually all of these elements are missing from Rhubarbs’s definition two. On the basis of the FBI definition The “Beltway sniper” though he effected plenty of terror did not engage in terrorism so defined. Hasan from what I have thus far gathered did rather clearly and I’d argue it makes no difference that he did so on a military base, and I have seen that argued, given the circumstances and context of his actions: his rampage unfolded at a center where some 300 unarmed soldiers were lined up for vaccines and eye tests. I think something like the FBI definition informs what Peretz thinks is terrorism. That said, I join with those who found his headline ranging from inapposite to apoplectically incoherent.

- basman

November 19, 2009 at 11:51pm

hey basman - Great post! I agree - the FBI definition is better. I also enjoyed reading your post on the "Hitchens" Spine thread.

- malahat

November 20, 2009 at 4:25am

The Ft. Hood "'terrorist'" (it seems that the grand inquisitors of political correctness have not yet permitted use of the term in relation to the Ft. Hood shooting) attack coming around the first anniversary of the Mumbai terrorist attack reminds me of how for the few days of the Mumbai attack much of the mainstream media, led of course by the NY Times, refused to label it "terrorism", (as well as downplaying the Jihadist / antisemitic aspects of the attack on the Mumbai Chabad house, but that represents a different Times pathology). The excuse given at the time by the Times was that they were still "clarifying" the situation to determine if the attack was worthy of being labeled "terrorism". When reading this at the time, I sent an e-mail to the Times' Public Editor and foreign editor asking them what do they suppose they could have possibly learned after the bare initial facts came out in the first several hours that would have led them to conclude that the Mumbai attack was not a terrorist attack. I never got an answer. Most of the reporting, controversy, and analysis of the Ft. Hood story that I have read, especially after the story of Hassan's "Grand Rounds" presentation, seems be a repeat of the same ostrich-like thinking that prevailed during and in the initial aftermath of the Mumbai attack. I think it should be evident now that mindless political correctness, kills. שבת שלום - Shabbat Shalom, Hershel Ginsburg Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

November 20, 2009 at 5:22am

jackson, I take your point, I suppose what I meant to say is that very often people think they need to say something profound and meaningful and end up saying something meaningless and useless, he certainly couldn't say the truth which is that this is just a prelude to far worst things, that unless the barbarians are wiped off the face of the earth, they will not stop until they nuke Dehli and Israel.

- blackton

November 20, 2009 at 10:34am

I agree with bl462: great post, basman! However, given that John Allen Muhammad was actually convicted of terrorism as a result of his sniper spree, you may need to rethink some of your conclusions. And lest there be any doubt among Marty's partisans that JAM was a terrorist, the man was a Muslim who explicitly described his shooting spree in terms of jihad. Another problem with the "precision" of the FBI definition is that a strict application of it would in fact define all acts of war as terrorism. The necessary purpose of all military action is the use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political objectives. And all military action is by definition "unlawful" from the perspective of the target; the organic laws of no nation recognize the right of any foreign power to use force against it for any purpose. Which is why a distinction must be made between acts of war and acts of terror -- a distinction the FBI definition does not need to make, because the FBI's authority is generally limited to civilian, not military, wrongdoing. (Further, as a matter of long-settled practice and law, when uniformed military personnel attack a civilian target with disregard for the laws of war, they are not engaged in terrorism; they are engaged in war crimes.) A distinction between acts of war and acts of terrorism is implied in the FBI definition, and so must be made explicit if we are to use the FBI language as a universal definition. But even granting the obviously inadequate FBI definition as a universal arbiter of terrorism, we must have some clear idea of what Hasan intended to intimidate or coerce anyone to do. Without some intelligible political or social agenda, his actions don't even meet the broad standards of the FBI definition. Which is why instrumentality matters. If Hasan set out to send a message, and used the shooting of his colleagues as his medium, then that would be terrorism. Whereas if Hasan set out to simply to kill people, that is murder, not terrorism, no matter how strongly held or abhorrent Hasan's particular religious and political beliefs.

- rhubarbs

November 20, 2009 at 10:43am

blackton "jackson, I take your point, I suppose what I meant to say is that very often people think they need to say something profound and meaningful and end up saying something meaningless and useless, he certainly couldn't say the truth which is that this is just a prelude to far worst things, that unless the barbarians are wiped off the face of the earth, they will not stop until they nuke Dehli and Israel." What an excellent restatement of my view, Blackton. Thanks. btw: I would also add Washington, Paris and London to the list of places they would want to bomb.

- jacksondyer

November 20, 2009 at 1:16pm