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).

January 16, 2019
Patrick Bond
Jim Yong Kim’s Mixed Messages to the World Bank and the World
John Grant
Joe Biden, Crime Fighter from Hell
Alvaro Huerta
Brief History Notes on Mexican Immigration to the U.S.
Kenneth Surin
A Great Speaker of the UK’s House of Commons
Elizabeth Henderson
Why Sustainable Agriculture Should Support a Green New Deal
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, Bolton and the Syrian Confusion
Jeff Mackler
Trump’s Syria Exit Tweet Provokes Washington Panic
Barbara Nimri Aziz
How Long Can Nepal Blame Others for Its Woes?
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: When Just One Man Says, “No”
Cesar Chelala
Violence Against Women: A Pandemic No Longer Hidden
Kim C. Domenico
To Make a Vineyard of the Curse: Fate, Fatalism and Freedom
Dave Lindorff
Criminalizing BDS Trashes Free Speech & Association
Thomas Knapp
Now More Than Ever, It’s Clear the FBI Must Go
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: The Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party: Part Two
Edward Curtin
A Gentrified Little Town Goes to Pot
January 15, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
Refugees Are in the English Channel Because of Western Interventions in the Middle East
Howard Lisnoff
The Faux Political System by the Numbers
Lawrence Davidson
Amos Oz and the Real Israel
John W. Whitehead
Beware the Emergency State
John Laforge
Loudmouths against Nuclear Lawlessness
Myles Hoenig
Labor in the Age of Trump
Jeff Cohen
Mainstream Media Bias on 2020 Democratic Race Already in High Gear
Dean Baker
Will Paying for Kidneys Reduce the Transplant Wait List?
George Ochenski
Trump’s Wall and the Montana Senate’s Theater of the Absurd
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: the Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Glenn Sacks
On the Picket Lines: Los Angeles Teachers Go On Strike for First Time in 30 Years
Jonah Raskin
Love in a Cold War Climate
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party
January 14, 2019
Kenn Orphan
The Tears of Justin Trudeau
Julia Stein
California Needs a 10-Year Green New Deal
Dean Baker
Declining Birth Rates: Is the US in Danger of Running Out of People?
Robert Fisk
The US Media has Lost One of Its Sanest Voices on Military Matters
Vijay Prashad
5.5 Million Women Build Their Wall
Nicky Reid
Lessons From Rojava
Ted Rall
Here is the Progressive Agenda
Robert Koehler
A Green Future is One Without War
Gary Leupp
The Chickens Come Home to Roost….in Northern Syria
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: “The Country Is Watching”
Sam Gordon
Who Are Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists?
Weekend Edition
January 11, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Richard Moser
Neoliberalism: Free Market Fundamentalism or Corporate Power?
Paul Street
Bordering on Fascism: Scholars Reflect on Dangerous Times
Joseph Majerle III – Matthew Stevenson
Who or What Brought Down Dag Hammarskjöld?
Jeffrey St. Clair - Joshua Frank
How Tre Arrow Became America’s Most Wanted Environmental “Terrorist”
Andrew Levine
Dealbreakers: The Democrats, Trump and His Wall
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail