An Act of Terror, an Act of War

“Little Evidence of Terror Plot in Base Killings,” headlined The New York Times. “After two days of inquiry into the mass shooting at Fort Hood, investigators have tentatively concluded that it was not part of a terrorist plot.”

Have we learned nothing about al Qaeda and the jihadi movement since September 11?

Although the evidence cannot yet be complete, and ABC News is reporting that Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was indeed attempting to make contact with al Qaeda associates, let us assume for the moment that he acted alone, was not part of a jihadi cell, and wasn’t under anyone’s direct command and control.  So what turns a person who, by all accounts we have so far, came from a proudly American immigrant family, was sufficiently patriotic to choose the Army as a career, and was a quiet man considered by his superiors to be “an asset,” into a killing machine who, in minutes, killed more than a dozen people — killed them methodically, discriminating among possible targets, finishing off the wounded and firing more than 100 rounds in total — left more than 30 wounded, carried additional ammunition in the cargo pants of his uniform, and did not stop shooting until he himself was shot?

The alternative explanation is that Nidal “snapped.”  He was depressed by his failures to find a wife and to get out of the Army, by harassment based upon the fact that he was Muslim, and he finally became emotionally unhinged by his impending deployment to Afghanistan or Iraq.  No doubt all of these shaped Nidal’s emotional and mental state.  But the process of “snapping” did not happen overnight.

He bought his FN Herstal 5.7 semi-automatic pistol — the kind often called a “cop killer” — several months ago, apparently under a pseudonym.  Interviews from Fort Hood residents and soldiers make it plain that Nidal had not just been making anti-war remarks, but arguing that “Muslims should stand up against the aggressor.”  He had also been visiting jihadi websites and had attended several Wahhabi-style mosques, including that used by two of the 9/11 attackers.  Indeed, there was a funeral service for Nidal’s mother in May 2001 at the mosque, shortly after the 9/11 bombers attended services there, during the tenure of Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical imam and author of “Forty-Four Ways to Support Jihad.”  The second of al-Awlaki’s “ways” is to pray that “Allah award you with martyrdom,” which “shows him that you are willing to give your life for him.  But you need to be careful not to be merely paying lip service.  A person who truly asks for shahadah would respond to the call of jihad whenever he hears it and would eagerly search for death in the path of Allah.”  As he began to fire, Nidal reportedly cried “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great.”

In sum, it would appear that Nidal’s path to the deployment processing center at Fort Hood began not just on the morning of November 5 but well before.  He may not have been responding to any order from a direct superior in a terrorist cell, but he seems very clearly to have been following a “mission order” that conveyed a commander’s intent.  This was politically motivated violence, and not just a crime but an act of irregular war.  It employed the means of terror not simply to kill the “enemy forces” but to terrorize the community — the American Muslim community most particularly.  Consider Anwar al-Awlaki’s blog post on Nidal:

Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a U.S. soldier. The U.S. is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges.

Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.  How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal. The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation. Many amongst them are choosing the former. The Muslim organizations in America came out in a pitiful chorus condemning Nidal’s operation.

The fact that fighting against the U.S. army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right — rather the duty — to fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy.

These are deeply unpleasant thoughts, but we need to weigh them carefully.  Thinking of the Nidal shootings simply as a “tragedy,” as President Obama has thus far said, or worrying about a “backlash” against Muslims in uniform, as Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey has suggested, is to miss the point: these are the kinds of acts that jihadis hope to spark.  They are intentional, if indirect.  This is a significant propaganda victory for them.

Who knew what, and when, and whom they told or didn’t tell about Nidal are also unpleasant thoughts, but questions that demand answers.  Fortunately, there are a few willing to ask the tough but necessary questions.  Speaking on a Sunday talk show, Sen. Joseph Lieberman called for a thorough and independent investigation of the shooting, “to see if signs were missed.”  The military, he said, needs to have a “zero tolerance” policy for those who express jihadi views and rhetoric.  Nidal “should have been gone.”

Indeed, it would have been a greater kindness to the 3,000-plus Muslims in uniform to have separated Nidal as the warning signs mounted.

Tom Donnelly is director of the Center for Defense Studies.