Domestic political violence (USA)

[Bob's World]

Well, yes -- however one man's terror is another's 'so what...'Mmm, not IMO. Hasan, yes and I agree; the Austin IRS Fly-In not so much. As you say, it's the intent. Who do you think he was trying to terrorize?

Which I don't see in many of the definitions. Not saying there isn't something to that. I think the SWJ community is a fairly sensible lot on these things, but also recognize that it is not a respresentative slice of America either (lest one feel either too good or too bad about some of the responses they receive to their thoughts posted here)

Valid points on a subjective topic.

But I am biased. I think "counterterrorism" is a mission set that does far more damage than good. In name alone it shifts the focuse to attacking the symptoms of problems; and away from the problems themselves. It also shifts the focus and funding to those organizations that engage those symptoms and away from those who are mandated with addressing the problems, thereby accentuating their previous failures that facilitated the rise of terrorism to beging with. A viscious circle.

Now we have a State Department that does Counterterrorism and Nation Building as what appears to be its new primary purpose in support to the Defense Department. Sad.

What we really need is a State Department that looks beyond states, but is focused on the diplomacy and policies needed to mitigate the need for such symptomatic approaches.

I guess I'm just irritated with our nation's approach to everything related to terrorism these days and it makes me grouchy. Sorry.

As to Ken's question though, of "who did he terrorize." Probably a few thousand bureaucrats.

More important question: Who did he inspire?

[Ken White]

I guess I'm just irritated with our nation's approach to everything related to terrorism these days and it makes me grouchy. Sorry.

Not a problem, as Bill would say, I feel your pain. Now you know why I'm grumpy and have been for forty plus years...

As to Ken's question though, of "who did he terrorize." Probably a few thousand bureaucrats.

That's the acceptable outcome. Desirable even.

Just don't terrorize Congress or they'll pass some REALLY dumb laws.

More important question: Who did he inspire?

Most likely no more than a few copycats who may or may not be successful, more or less. As I believe Slap will agree, that factors into a lot of criminal acts.

[Bob's World]

I too don't think his inspiration will do much. Why? No Causation.

In America many complain about the government, but we recognize it's legitimacy and we believe in our ability to control it, vice the other way around. This is what immunizes a populace from Insurgent motivation, be it ideology, leadership, or acts like this.

Most populaces don't have anything even close to what we enjoy in America in this regard; but I assess downward trends on both of these critical metrics over the past 20 years; and that is a trend we would be wise to address sooner than later. Good COIN is done years before the acutal insurgent is ever even born.

[zenpundit]

You have neatly encapsulated why I'm deeply suspicious of experts. An ex is a has-been, etc.

"An expert is someone who has made all of the mistakes that can be made in a narrow field" - Niels Bohr

[Schmedlap]

Nobody else has asked, so I will.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he is a terrorist. Let us also assume that he was acting alone - a lone wolf, a loner, a loser, whichever you like. Now, for the question: so what?

If he is a terrorist, should this make his crime more troubling than if he were not a terrorist?

[zenpundit]

Nobody else has asked, so I will.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he is a terrorist. Let us also assume that he was acting alone - a lone wolf, a loner, a loser, whichever you like. Now, for the question: so what?

If he is a terrorist, should this make his crime more troubling than if he were not a terrorist?

Excellent question!

Yes.

A guy going postal because of personal issues doesn't have the attractive or inspirational potential of politically motivated terrorism. In other words, terrorism can have an effect on the psychological/moral level in a way that a guy slicing up his neighbors in his apartment and eating them with fava beans and a nice chianti does not. The former is a cause, the latter, a curiousity.

[Schmedlap]

In other words, terrorism can have an effect on the psychological/moral level in a way that a guy slicing up his neighbors in his apartment and eating them with fava beans and a nice chianti does not. The former is a cause, the latter, a curiousity.

Now I need to ask a follow up, since you mention psych thing and the causal thing.

Is this any more troubling than some high-profile school shooting that is likely to cause copycat shootings?

[Ken White]

may be changing: LINK. I saw another poll but cannot find it wherein IIRC, about 60+ % of the people thought that they were not in control of the government while about 60+ % of the Political class (whatever that is...) thought the people were in control. That is not a good transposition because it giver the pols carte blanche to keep doing what they're doing -- which generally is not good.

So your point about a downward trend is valid and, as you say, good COIN is done BEFORE there is a problem...