Posted on Jul 22, 2015
Is the Chatanooga incident an act of terrorism or an act of war?
4.51K
50
17
6
6
0
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?
======================================================
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?
Posted in these groups: 
Chattanooga
Terrorism
Chattanooga Terrorism
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
4
4
0
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
Indeed, TSgt (Join to see), what else would you call a "Shock and Awe" campaign writ small?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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".
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
1LT William Clardy
What defines it as terrorism, SSgt Alex Robinson, as opposed to an otherwise legitimate act of war by an illegal combatant?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
They declared war on the US a long time ago. It's our govt who hasn't responding in kind,
(1)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
There has been a war going on for a long time, but isn't there also a question of what would distinguish a local lunatic from an enlistee in an irregular army?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
If it an act of war, what makes it more despicable than our drone strikes, SGT (Join to see) ?
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
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...
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.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google