Is the Chatanooga incident an act of terrorism or an act of war?

2015-07-22T17:35:47-04:00

Quoting from a rather cogent, albeit jarring, commentary on Slate:

======================================================
According to local and federal officials, Thursday’s bloody assault in Chattanooga, Tennessee, was ruthless and deranged. The U.S. attorney says investigators are treating the attacks, committed by a lone gunman at a military recruiting station and a Navy and Marine Corps Reserve center, as a possible “act of terrorism.” Defense Secretary Ashton Carter calls it a “senseless act of violence.” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus says the attacks were out of bounds: “While we expect our Sailors and Marines to go into harm's way, and they do so without hesitation, an attack at home, in our community, is insidious and unfathomable.”
Senseless? Unfathomable? Terrorism? I doubt it. If this incident was inspired by Islamic jihad, as many investigators suspect, then it probably wasn’t senseless. Nor was it terrorism. It was a rational, horrific act of war.
Americans think we’re tough because we have a strong military. In truth, most of us are soft. We know nothing of combat. We don’t regularly hear gunfire or worry about our kids dying in an airstrike. When somebody who’s angry at our government opens fire in one of our cities, we can’t believe crime has come to our own neighborhood. We call it terrorism.
...
Are trainers and recruiters noncombatants? If so, we’re killing noncombatants every week. According to the Pentagon’s latest published data, our coalition in Syria and Iraq has struck more than 2,000 enemy “buildings” and nearly 500 “staging areas.” A “staging area” can be almost anything—according to the U.S. military glossary, it’s “a general locality established for the concentration of troop units.” Scan the Pentagon’s daily reports on the campaign, and you’ll see accounts of strikes against “barracks,” “compounds,” “structures,” “manufacturing workshops,” and “logistics hubs.” If you’re an ISIS foot soldier, it hardly matters where you are or what you’re doing. You’re a target.
Recruiters are standard fare. In February, we sent a drone to kill an ISIS recruiter in Afghanistan, even though, according to a Pentagon spokesman, the recruiter had “decided to swear allegiance to [ISIS] probably no more than a couple weeks ago. And he didn't have a whole lot of depth to any network resources or manpower when he did it.”
======================================================
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/07/the_chattanooga_ killings_aren_t_terrorism_they_are_a_rational_horrific_act.html?wpsrc

What do you think? Does Mr. Saletan make some valid points?

Response by Sgt David G Duchesneau made Jul 22 at 2015 5:42 PM

2015-07-22T17:42:37-04:00

It was a cowardly act of domestic terrorism!

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 5:55 PM

2015-07-22T17:55:29-04:00

Good point to think on. As ISIS considers themselves a nation state and the attack was on uniformed military personnel, that would put it in the frame of 'act of war'.
Although the purpose seems clearly to have been to engender fear as a force multiplier in asynchronous warfare, which is what the word terrorism would be about.
Maybe they're not wholly exclusive; regardless of government/press wish to portray the phrases.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Jul 22 at 2015 6:44 PM

2015-07-22T18:44:29-04:00

The terms are not exclusive.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jul 22 at 2015 7:02 PM

2015-07-22T19:02:54-04:00

Neither, the FBI can't prove any link to any terrorist organization.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 7:08 PM

2015-07-22T19:08:11-04:00

Right now I would call it domestic terrorism, unless there is clear evidence that he was recruited and then persuaded to commit these acts by an outside influence, be it ISIS, or some other organization. It was a despicable act either way.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 8:11 PM

2015-07-22T20:11:14-04:00

They declared war on the US a long time ago. It's our govt who hasn't responding in kind,

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 22 at 2015 10:31 PM

2015-07-22T22:31:47-04:00

It was terrorism.

Response by SSG Stephen Arnold made Jul 23 at 2015 1:03 AM

2015-07-23T01:03:56-04:00

We know what it was, but the POTUS will never SAY it.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jul 23 at 2015 4:28 AM

2015-07-23T04:28:49-04:00

Terrorism but that word has been so overused as to make it worthless at this point. Asymmetrical Warfare, OK Sure, Warfare outside the Norm all appropriate. It was an attack against a symbolic easy target. Nothing New. Learned about that in London at the Heyday of the IRA and the Bader Meinhoff Crew. The Names Change the Actors Change but the Song Remains the Same. When you are the Underdog with Limited Resources that is your preferred method. There are always confused young men waiting for a "Cause".

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 8:46 AM

2015-07-23T08:46:08-04:00

I would call it an act of war, but on the same token, can it be considered an act of war if we're already at war (or atleast supposed to be if you believe the hype) with ISIS? I truly wonder what our course of action will be in the coming years regarding this new enemy, god willing I hope it's the right one this time. We've done some good things in Iraq and Afghanistan and we've done some not-so-good things.

Frankly I'm torn, on one hand I'm weary of us pouring so many tax dollars and using up our defense budget on helping countries that seem to have little will to fight and help themselves. On the other hand, I can't stand to see places like Fallujah in Iraq that were hard one just be given up on so easily after so much was lost to liberate it.

Do we stay the course and possibly re-invade Iraq a third time? Or do we send in small battalion/brigade-sized units as we have been to advise and assist? It's a difficult situation we find ourselves in ladies and gentlemen. Frankly, and many will probably dislike what I'm about to say, I'd rather us fight them here on the home turf.

Why do you ask? Why put everyone else in harm's way when we can fight them in their own lands? That's just it: we can't. We truly cannot fight them because our hands our tied by ROE and LOW. If they're here, on our soil, I guarantee the gloves will be off. Also, again, probably not going to be something anyone's going to want to see: the American people need to see what we've been dealing with.

These extremists are not people, human beings yes, but they have no soul. They behead children, they kill women without remorse. In order for Americans to realize just what kind of evil they are, they are going to have to see it first hand. Not watered down by the media and not played down by the government.

I'm sure my points will come as a shock and controversial to some, but I can't be the only one whose tired of American forgetting about what all of us have done and given up. Right now the Marines and the Sailor who died are already swept away from the public's attention. Don't get me wrong, there are patriots out there taking up arms to protect recruiting stations now, but the large majority of the public is more concerned with the Kardashians.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Aug 6 at 2015 12:29 AM

2015-08-06T00:29:34-04:00

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/31/carter-approves-arming-more-troops-at-recruiting-stations.html?ESRC=navy-a.nl

Now we're getting somewhere. Maybe some of our troops will be safe now...

Carter Approves Arming More Troops at Bases and Recruiting Stations

The SecDef has given his top commanders the green light to allow more troops to carry weapons at U.S. bases and recruiting stations.