Search articles from thousands of Examiners
Write for us
Washington DC Politics Minneapolis Moderate Examiner
Minneapolis Moderate Examiner

Nancy Gibbs: The "new" form of terrorism?

November 16, 9:02 PMMinneapolis Moderate ExaminerJohn Watne
Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe


Get alerts when there is a new article from the Minneapolis Moderate Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.
Email Address


  Include other special offers from Examiner.com
Terms of Use

Nancy Gibbs, journalist for TIME Magazine, penned an article recently about Nidal Hasan.  In it she considers the idea that "terrorism" as it is usually explained is not an accurate a designation for what we face as a nation.  But nothing exposes her as a Villager more than getting her facts wrong as did the rest of the media:

And who denied him his martyrdom? That would be Kimberly Munley, the SWAT-team markswoman nicknamed Mighty Mouse, who with her partner ran toward the sound of gunshots at the Soldier Readiness Center, where men and women about to deploy gather for vaccinations and eye exams.

It was actually Sergeant Mark Todd.  As of November sixteenth it still hasn't been corrected in the online edition.  Far be it from this author to claim the media checks "facts" anymore.
Nancy and some other journalists from the magazine claim that since we have "crushed" al Qaeda and defeated our enemies by allowing the government to wiretap our phone calls, there must be some other reason why these "home-grown" terrorists might find to become extreme in their views.  Could it be that they might speak to a cleric who espouses "anti-American" viewpoints, as Hasan is reported to have done?  Or is the thought much more sinister?  Were there missed signals by the powers that be that let one of "them" through to attack those very men and women who are charged with protecting the country?  All paranoia aside, Ms. Gibbs seems to agree that our government ought to classify what is "terrorism:"
It might help if there were at least agreement on what constitutes terrorism; one government study found 109 different definitions.
One hundred and nine different ways to describe something that is inherently difficult to describe in every day language.  What would make someone think that the only way to get their point across is to inflict massive panic and death upon a populace in order to try to get their will?  Could it be holding a protest against perceived injustices of the government?  Or perhaps could it just be viewing our aged "War on Terror" (or whatever it is we're calling it these days) with a skewed perspective as Al-Jazeera broadcasts footage of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib?  It is astonishing that Ms. Gibbs concludes almost nothing about how the other world (i.e. the Muslim one) views the current occupation of two of their lands at the hands of an invader bent on bringing democracy with a loaded gun in relation to how they might view the West. Nidal Hasan may have had an adverse reaction to the perception that the US was in fact at war with the faith he claimed as his own.  That still can't possibly explain why he chose to end it all when he did.  If he survives his ordeal in the hospital one can only wonder at could be gained through interviews.  Ms. Gibbs seems to understand his mindset to a point:
But while the motivations of the Virginia Tech gunman seemed perversely personal, Hasan had spent years telling anyone who would listen that the U.S. war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan was immoral.
Unfortunately there is no follow-up to that statement on whether or not this mindset is worth considering.  It is dismissed in favor of worse situations.  What citizen of this country would ever speak like this:
When an Army officer is reported to proudly call himself a Muslim first, an American second; when he appears at a public-health seminar with the PowerPoint presentation "Why the War on Terror Is a War on Islam"; when he applauds the killing of a U.S. soldier by a Muslim convert at an Arkansas recruitment center; and when he is caught corresponding with a radical imam in Yemen who has called on all Muslims to kill American soldiers in Iraq, you wonder just how brightly the red lights had to flash before anyone was willing to stop and ask some questions.
Yes, questions are needed.  True there's no honor in celebrating the deaths of the soldier in Arkansas.  But putting together a presentation discussing how Muslims might perceive the "War on Terror" as nothing more than another disguised crusade on their land?  I realize the military probably disagrees with that assertion, but to their credit they let him give this presentation.  This is thought of as one of the political correctness-inspired "red lights" that Nancy Gibbs argues were missed, instead of insight into why exactly our country is fighting over there.  When it comes to being politically incorrect, nothing is like the establishment press in how they interpret events to mirror the supposed status quo in the Beltway.  There couldn't possibly be a reason for a Muslim soldier to be upset at our actions to give democracy and freedom to the Middle East!  It's not like the US hasn't facilitated torture, or in fact done the job themselves via the vast CIA network.  These types of actions are nothing more than our defenses against what the political class tells us are threats to our very way of life.
 
A more balanced look at this terrible issue might include reasons why this disaffected man decided to do this.  Many exist, no doubt, and perhaps it is folly to try and understand the true motives behind a mass murder.  But we must try, and one step toward that goal should include an education on changing our perspectives in this war.  By thinking of the US not just as a country attacked on 9/11 and vowing revenge but as a beacon of hope for the entire world we can hope to gain a better understanding of why so many dreams have been shattered in the Middle East over the last nine years.  Ms. Gibbs is certainly entitled to her own view on why we should be worried more about "terrorists" among the population.  But by believing what we are doing is somehow working, she deceives her audience into buying the status-quo party line.
 
To her credit, she ends the piece with a moving tribute to those that were lost; a helpful reminder that the grief of this tragedy is far from gone.  And yet, this is a moment to reflect as a nation on why we are sending our young men and women to occupy two Middle Eastern countries to somehow protect our ourselves.  The damage done creating a perception that the United States is at war with anyone Muslim is imperceptible.  The courageous fight against those few radical Islamic elements that sought to sow disruption came to a crashing halt upon the invasion of Iraq and its disastrous aftermath.  Now that America stands ready to enter a ninth year in the Graveyard of Empires, it ought to reconsider just what has been accomplished.  And at what price.

 

Add a Comment

Name:


Comments:
characters left

NOTE: Do Not Alter These Fields:

Vancouver 2010
Get exclusive coverage from Examiners on the Winter Games in Vancouver.

Recent Articles

Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Wanting to "look forward, not backward" has been a hallmark of the Obama administration. Despite President Obama's numerous mentions of …
Monday, February 1, 2010
The Los Angeles Times has a story out today detailing the procedures the CIA uses to determine if a United States citizen can be assassinated abroad. …

Blogroll