Sudden Jihad Syndrome

Evil rears it’s head at Ft. Hood, TX.

It’s hard enough for the families of  a soldier to cope with the stress of repeated deployments to a war zone. And it’s no cakewalk for the soldiers themselves. But the garrison environment is generally one of the safest communities around.

Army posts are small cities, with all the aspects you would find in almost any town, with residential neighborhoods, a shopping district, a business district, and industrial parks.  But they have historically very low rates of crime.

In fact, this isn’t really a “crime” per se, but an act of terrorism, perpetrated by American soldiers, against American soldiers.

I can’t begin to tell you how my heart aches. Prayers for the families and loved ones of the fallen.

5 thoughts on “Sudden Jihad Syndrome”

  1. How is this “not a crime”? Were no laws broken? It’s a mistake to elevate a terrorist by considering him some kind of honorable warrior and not a criminal. Osama bin Laden is a criminal, and this guy is a criminal. Don’t be confused by the term “war on terror”. It’s a metaphorical war, like the War on Poverty, or the War on Cancer or (God help us) the War on Drugs.

  2. John has a good point that it is a crime regardless of if it is terrorism or not.

    One thing I feel sure of is that soldiers feeling unsafe on site and with other soldiers is not tenable. There will be a security response.

  3. There will be a security response.

    Sure, and it will be a further burden on the law abiding residents of military posts. Intrusive searches, restrictions on the ownership of Privately Owned Firearms (which is already pretty damned inconvenient for most soldiers in barracks) and such.

    Was it a crime in the sense of breaking Federal statutes? Sure.

    But it isn’t a crime as we often tend to think of crime, where there is a somewhat rational motive, such as robbery. The Brits have the term “Ordinary Decent Criminals” to differentiate between what we think of crime and acts of senseless terrorism such as this.

    And John, I don’t think describing someone as a terrorist is code for some sort of honorable warrior. In my mind, it is a term of contempt.

  4. It isn’t senseless terrorism. It is treason.

    It is perfectly sensible. Hasan was a lonely bitter man who was being called upon to repay a debt he regretted. He was American by birth, but his loyalty was not to the US, but to the destruction of what the US has stood for. He did more damage to the US in Fort Hood than he could have done after deployment even if he had defected.

    Hasan’s assault on Fort Hood’s population, civilian, military, and/or dependent will have positive benefits for the Islamic struggle against the US.

    1. It will make life on post more difficult, lower quality of life, and make recruiting and retention harder.
    2. It will sew distrust between soldier and medical corps, making dealing with stress more difficult, making it harder for soldiers to find rapport with psychological professionals.
    3. It has already begun a media led cry for more toleration of islam-inspired behavior, and more consideration for the ideals of muslims at the expense of more traditional democratic/ judeo-christian ideals.
    4. It killed a few soldiers, who may not be irreplaceable, are pretty expensive to train, and damned more valuable to America than Hasan.

    Yeah, he probably didn’t do it because he was clever, and he probably wasn’t under command and control of the Organization to Spread Terror in the Harbi.

    He probably just couldn’t find a pole-dancer fantasy wife who wanted to wear a hijab in public and swear allegiance to a misogynistic religion, and the pressure of using only the left hand got to him.

    His actions were immoral, but not senseless.

  5. Yes Brad, this is not just a crime. Indeed it paints regular criminals in a positive light.

    Senseless, no, unless one means from their own point of view. From Hasan it probably made sense. I’m not sure I want to visualise that thought pattern.

Comments are closed.