FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Chattanooga Shooting, If Linked to ISIS, is a Act of War, Not “Terrorism”

I’m not a fan of war or of killing of any kind, but the labeling of the deadly attack by Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez on two US military sites in Chattanooga, Tennessee as an act of terror is absurd.

Maybe Abdulazeez will turn out to have been a nut-case bent on committing “suicide by police.” There are plenty of those kinds of psychos in the gun-soaked culture of America. But what we’re hearing, increasingly, is that he was somehow linked to Middle East jihad, and ultimately to ISIS, and that he is therefore a “terrorist.”

That is ridiculous!

If it turns out that Abdulazeez was in any way linked to ISIS, then his action in attacking US military personnel in the US and killing them has to be seen not as terrorism but as a retributive act of war. That is no dishonor to those Marines killed. It simply makes it clear that they were killed in a war, not by some crazy person.

US citizens need to start accepting the reality that if the United States is going to go around the world blowing up people with fighter-bombers, special forces actions and drone missile attacks, eventually the targets of those aggressive acts of war will start responding against the US in kind. And they would have a legal right to do this under the rules of war.

If Abdulazeez turns out to have been retaliating against the US for its attacks on ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria, he was a combatant, not a terrorist. Had he been captured instead of “neutralized” as the police reported in their sterilized lingo, he would properly have been treated as a prisoner of war, at least in any country that actually adheres to the Geneva Conventions to which the US is a signatory. Of course, the US has long since tossed those hoary conventions into the trash bin, considering itself to be an “exceptional” nation not bound by international law, but that’s another matter.

The point is, you reap what you sow, and the US, in its Global War on Terror, has sown a lot of death, murder and destruction, which will inevitably return to US shores as the same kind of thing.

Abdulazeez, if he was a combatant, deserves credit really, at least for following the rules of war. He appears to have focused his killing remarkably well on actual military personnel. There were no civilian casualties in his attacks, no children killed or even wounded.

Compare that to the US record. According to most experts outside the government, the US drone war in Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia and other venues has primarily killed civilians, and disproportionately, children. Only a relatively small number of actual enemy fighters have actually been successfully hit.

Authorities in Washington and patriotic yahoos in the media want to call every shooting, including shootings of US military personnel in the US or even abroad, acts of “terrorism,” because they don’t want to admit that they are acts of war. To do so might well lead even a reflexively patriotic and intellectually challenged American public to start asking how all this US military aggression abroad is actually contributing to their safety here at home.

That would be a dangerous question if people started asking it, since clearly none of America’s wars or military adventures since 9-11 has made the.American people any safer.

Calling the killing of American troops like the latest incident in Chattanooga, or even ones in Afghanistan, where everyone knows US forces are engaged in a full-scale war, acts of “terror” fits in with a kind of one-sided story line where we are just a peaceful nation minding our own business, while these “evil ones” out there, and even here in the US, are just out to get us.

Calling such people “terrorists” lends more support to the false argument that we Americans should happily surrender more and more of our precious and hard-won freedoms to the burgeoning police state in hopes that it will protect us.

If the government were to acknowledge the reality, which is that by unilaterally going out and killing people abroad in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere, the US is inviting inevitable retaliation in kind back here in the “homeland,” one has to hope that some Americans would start to question the wisdom of such an aggressive policy.

I raised this question two years ago when the Pentagon decided, instead of decommissioning an obsolete US Naval Air Station in Horsham, PA, just a couple of miles from where I live, to convert it into a drone piloting base, where US Navy Reserve personnel could put in their service commitment hours piloting deadly drones in Pakistan and elsewhere. As I wrote after interviewing military law specialists, including some at the US War College, that drone base near me, because it was launching strikes abroad, had become a front line in America’s wars. Not only was the base itself a “legitimate target” now for anyone from the targeted countries who might try to put a stop to the attacks, but the pilots and personnel on the base would be legitimate targets, and not just while they were in uniform and on the base, but even when they punched out and got in their cars and drove home to be with their families in the evening.

A soldier is a soldier, I was told.

And here’s the kicker. If some foreign fighter decided to attack one of those drone pilots by pulling an explosives-laden truck up to her or his house and detonating it, blowing up perhaps four homes and some passing cars, that would be a “legitimate act of war,” if the target was the pilot. Anyone else killed in the attack would be “collateral damage” as long as they were not deliberately targeted.

So this is the real world our brilliant leaders in Washington have created.

I’d guess, as long as it continues — and there’s no indication that this crazy US “War on Terror” is going to be ended anytime soon — these kinds of attacks like Chattanooga are going to continue, or even increase in number, and what the Pentagon likes to call the “collateral damage” of such attacks will no doubt increase too.

Better that we start calling them what they are: acts of war.

As long as we diminish them by calling them acts of terrorism, nobody’s going to demand a halt to the War on Terror. And that “war” is the real act of terrorism, when you come right down to it.

More articles by:

Dave Lindorff is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

November 14, 2018
Charles Pierson
Unstoppable: The Keystone XL Oil Pipeline and NAFTA
Sam Bahour
Israel’s Mockery of Security: 101 Actions Israel Could Take
Cesar Chelala
How a Bad Environment Impacts Children’s Health
George Ochenski
What Tester’s Win Means
Louisa Willcox
Saving Romania’s Brown Bears, Sharing Lessons About Coxistence, Conservation
George Wuerthner
Alternatives to Wilderness?
Robert Fisk
Izzeldin Abuelaish’s Three Daughters were Killed in Gaza, But He Still Clings to Hope for the Middle East
Dennis Morgan
For What?
Dana E. Abizaid
The Government is Our Teacher
Bill Martin
The Trump Experiment: Liberals and Leftists Unhinged and Around the Bend
Rivera Sun
After the Vote: An Essay of the Man from the North
Jamie McConnell
Allowing Asbestos to Continue Killing
Thomas Knapp
Talkin’ Jim Acosta Hard Pass Blues: Is White House Press Access a Constitutional Right?
Bill Glahn
Snow Day
November 13, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
The Midterm Results are Challenging Racism in America in Unexpected Ways
Victor Grossman
Germany on a Political Seesaw
Cillian Doyle
Fictitious Assets, Hidden Losses and the Collapse of MDM Bank
Lauren Smith
Amnesia and Impunity Reign: Wall Street Celebrates Halliburton’s 100th Anniversary
Joe Emersberger
Moreno’s Neoliberal Restoration Proceeds in Ecuador
Carol Dansereau
Climate and the Infernal Blue Wave: Straight Talk About Saving Humanity
Dave Lindorff
Hey Right Wingers! Signatures Change over Time
Dan Corjescu
Poetry and Barbarism: Adorno’s Challenge
Patrick Bond
Mining Conflicts Multiply, as Critics of ‘Extractivism’ Gather in Johannesburg
Ed Meek
The Kavanaugh Hearings: Text and Subtext
Binoy Kampmark
Concepts of Nonsense: Australian Soft Power
November 12, 2018
Kerron Ó Luain
Poppy Fascism and the English Education System
Conn Hallinan
Nuclear Treaties: Unwrapping Armageddon
Robert Hunziker
Tropical Trump Declares War on Amazonia
John W. Whitehead
Badge of Shame: the Government’s War on Military Veterans
Will Griffin
Military “Service” Serves the Ruling Class
John Eskow
Harold Pinter’s America: Hard Truths and Easy Targets
Rob Okun
Activists Looking Beyond Midterm Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Mid-Term Divisions: The Trump Take
Dean Baker
Short-Term Health Insurance Plans Destroy Insurance Pools
George Wuerthner
Saving the Buffalohorn/Porcupine: the Lamar Valley of the Gallatin Range
Patrick Howlett-Martin
A Note on the Paris Peace Forum
Joseph G. Ramsey
Does America Have a “Gun Problem”…Or a White Supremacy Capitalist Empire Problem?
Weekend Edition
November 09, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Louis Proyect
Why Democrats Are So Okay With Losing
Andrew Levine
What Now?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Chuck and Nancy’s House of Cards
Brian Cloughley
The Malevolent Hypocrisy of Selective Sanctions
Marc Levy
Welcome, Class of ‘70
David Archuleta Jr.
Facebook Allows Governments to Decide What to Censor
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The Zika Scare: a Political and Commercial Maneuver of the Chemical Poisons Industry
Nick Pemberton
When It Comes To Stone Throwing, Democrats Live In A Glass House
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail