|
TODAY'S TOPIC:
Let's Be Vigilant
Regarding
Homegrown Terrorists
by
Natalia J. Garland
Print Version
|
In our post-9/11 world--even eight years after the FIRST* attack on
American soil--there are people who do not acknowledge the threat
from terrorists living among us. There is an unwillingness to face
harsh realities and solve difficult problems. In other words, when
a defense mechanism such as denial is used by massive numbers of
people, it can make the wrong look right (or justified) and the
right look wrong (or at fault). Homegrown terrorists are ignored
or granted politically correct excuses while American citizens are
put at risk of losing their lives.
The potential force
of homegrown terrorism might become more recognizable if inserted
into the context of another era in American history. Every
American knows, for example, that slavery was wrong. Could we
compare the wrongness of slavery to the wrongness of terrorism, and
perhaps emotionally equip denialists to engage in problem-solving
and self-protection? Would denialists more clearly see who are the
victims of terrorism and who are the perpetrators?
In 1845, Frederick
Douglass wrote about his experiences as a slave in America. In the
preface to the original publication of Narrative of the Life of
Frederick Douglas, an American Slave, William Lloyd Garrison
wrote the following:
|
So profoundly ignorant of the nature of slavery are many persons,
that they are stubbornly incredulous whenever they read or listen
to any recital of the cruelties which are daily inflicted on its
victims. They do not deny that the slaves are held as property;
but that terrible fact seems to convey to their minds no idea of
injustice, exposure to outrage, or savage barbarity. Tell them of
cruel scourgings, of mutilations and brandings, of scenes of
pollution and blood, of the bandishment of all light and
knowledge, and they affect to be greatly indignant at such
enormous exaggerations, such wholesale misstatements, such
abominable libels on the character of the southern planters! As
if all these direful outrages were not the natural results of
slavery! As if it were less cruel to reduce a human being to the
condition of a thing, than to give him a severe flagellation, or to
deprive him of necessary food and clothing! As if whips, chains,
thumbscrews, paddles, bloodhounds, overseers, drivers, patrols,
were not all indispensable to keep the slaves down, and to give
protection to their ruthless oppressors! As if, when the marriage
institution is abolished, concubinage, adultery, and incest, must
not necessarily abound; when all the rights of humanity are
annihilated, any barrier remains to protect the victim from the
fury of the spoiler; when absolute power is assumed over life and
liberty; it will not be wielded with destructive sway! Skeptics of
this character abound in society. In some few instances, their
incredulity arises from a want of reflection; but, generally, it
indicates a hatred of the light, a desire to shield slavery from
the assaults of its foes, a contempt of the colored race, whether
bond or free. Such will try to discredit the shocking tales of
slave-holding cruelty which are recorded in this truthful
Narrative; but they will labor in vain. Mr. Douglass has frankly
disclosed the place of his birth, the names of those who claimed
ownership in his body and soul, and the names also of those who
committed the crimes which he has alleged against them. His
statements, therefore, may easily be disproved, if they are
untrue.
[End of quote.]
|
Why are homegrown
terrorists, like the slave-holders of America's past, not regarded
as ruthless oppressors who want to claim ownership of body and
soul? If there was (and still is to a much lesser extent) a
contempt for black people, why are homegrown terrorists not also
regarded as contemptuous of all Americans? Moreover, why are so
many Americans filled with contempt for their own country?
(See my essays Why Ask Why? and Hatred Complex and Self-Hatred Sequence.)
No matter how much we try to uncover the roots and understand the
culture of any type of behavior--and such study is worthy--there
are nevertheless certain behaviors (slavery, terrorism, rape,
murder, etc.) that can never be justified but must always be
confronted, punished, and extinguished. Slavery would not be
tolerated in today's America. Why are homegrown terrorists
ignored or afforded politically correct excuses?
Today I will attempt
to summarize some of the reactions to the Fort Hood massacre which
was perpetrated by Major Nidal Malik Hasan and in which 12 soldiers
and one civilian were killed and 30 people were injured. I will
draw from articles by Dr. Judith Sills, Dr. Phyllis Chesler, and
Debra J. Saunders, as well as add a few thoughts of my own. My
purpose is to pull together insightful writing about homegrown
terrorists and to expose political correctness as an obstruction to
national security.
From a
Professional Viewpoint
Hasan was an Army
psychiatrist. Well, psychiatrists are crazier than their patients
anyway, right? Wrong. How many other psychiatrists are committing
violent jihad? Professional helpers (psychiatrists, psychologists,
social workers) have various levels of mental health, personal
happiness, and professional competence (see my essay Should Therapists Be in Therapy?). If
Hasan was suffering from any kind of mental health issue--and most
terrorists are probably mentally ill (see my essay Beyond Comprehension)-- or if he was
experiencing personal unhappiness, then these states of mind should
have been noticed and reported by other Army personnel.
Did Hasan work under
supervision? Was he a part of a treatment team? Did he seek
professional consultation on difficult cases? Was he subject to
periodic case audits? Was he in therapy--and did he share his
jihadist thoughts with his therapist, and did his therapist have a
duty to warn? If he shared any such thoughts with a religious
leader, was that leader morally (if not legally) obligated to warn?
There have been
attempts to understand or justify Hasan's actions by saying that
he snapped, he was suffering from trauma, he was a lonely and
tormented man, he was expressing his opposition to an unjust war.
The Pentagon-Congressional Probes, as seen on CNN, said that Hasan
"channelled his personality problems into fanaticism."
This may be true, and we need to understand any such dynamics in
order to prevent further episodes. A homegrown terrorist, so
obvious to some of us, has a different mental state from that of
the average American.
Hasan could have
made other choices regarding the channelling of any personality
issues. How would most professionals cope? They would seek
therapy, talk to peers or to their supervisor, turn to a circle of
friends, take a vacation, develop a hobby, write a book, go back to
school, consult with a legitimate religious advisor for positive
guidance. Other professional caretakers would not go on a
mass-murder spree.
Hasan, however,
chose to radicalize himself, using Al Qaeda tactics as his model.
It does not matter that he acted alone or whether he was officially
connected to Al Qaeda. He made a choice and he had a plan. He
aligned himself with extremist Islam which is backed by a certain
cultural and ideological segment of the world's population. In
that sense, he was not alone. He was a part of a whole that is
anti-American, anti-Western Civilization, anti-Christianity and
anti-Judaism. He did not snap. And, unlike other professionals,
he did not find a way to cope with, adjust to, or change his life
circumstances in a positive manner. At some point along the way,
we would have to say that Hasan ceased being a psychiatrist and
began functioning solely as a jihadist. A real psychiatrist--an
empathic professional dedicated to helping others--could not do
what Hasan did.
In the attempt to
distinguish Hasan from other professionals (both competent and
incompetent, both happy and unhappy), we could view Hasan's
condition as follows.
|
Hasan's Condition
(from a working viewpoint)
- He self-radicalized (he refused to deal with life on life's
terms).
- He planned the Fort Hood massacre as an act of terrorism (he
did not snap due to any personal affliction or external
misfortune).
- He used Al Qaeda as a model (he was a jihadist, and violent
jihad was his motivation, purpose, and goal).
- He did not identify as an American (his ideology was more
important than and contrary to America's humanitarian values, the
Constitution, and Army service; and he identified with the cause of
Palestine).
|
The above list is
not intended to be diagnostic. It is based on news reports and
opinions of Hasan's actions and background, and not on any
clinically psychological criteria. It is, rather, a list of
cultural and political attributes (No. 1 might be an exception, but
the Pentagon-Congressional Probes also commented on Hasan's
"personality problems"). Putting the list together was a
matter of logical thinking, research and organization, and common
sense--unless one is in denial and/or indoctrinated by political
correctness.
The list is intended
to defend those helping professions in which psychotherapy
is practiced, to separate typical unhappiness from violent jihad,
and to expose political correctness. Since September 11, 2001, I
have been trying to understand the dynamics of terrorism. Anyone
who may have clicked on the above essay links, or who has scrolled
through my Table of Contents, knows the intense effort that I have
put into this task.
From a
Political Viewpoint
It is well past
3:00 a.m. That was when the SECOND terrorist attack was committed
on American soil. In my essay Obama Speaks in Cairo I wrote the
following.
|
Should Obama have
mentioned the murder of Pvt. William A. Long? Pvt. Long, aged 23,
was killed at a military recruiting station by an American convert
to Islam, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, on June 2, 2009. Muhammad
also wounded Pvt. Quintan Ezeagwula, aged 18, in the incident.
Muhammad stated that he committed these acts because of American
military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The murder of Pvt.
Long was a terrorist act committed on American soil. Although
other countries have experienced this type of terrorist act more
frequently and more severely than America, it should be a matter of
utmost concern to the whole world if America starts getting
attacked from within. America is the greatest stronghold against
terrorism. If terrorists can diminish American power and
resources, then other countries will find themselves in even
greater danger. Americans cannot protect others if we become
necessarily preoccupied with our own survival on a day-to-day
crisis level.
Obama could have
used Pvt. Long's murder as a rallying point for a new beginning
between Americans and Muslims. He could have motivated everyone to
prevent the senseless loss of innocent lives, in America and in
Muslim countries. Remember the 2008 presidential campaigns?
Remember Senator Hillary Clinton saying that Obama was not
qualified to be Commander in Chief,** not ready to take that 3:00
a.m. phone call? Pvt. Long was Obama's 3:00 a.m. call, and Obama
failed to awake from his slumber.
[End of quote.]
|
Now, the massacre
at Fort Hood on 11/05/09 by Major Nidal Malik Hasan was the THIRD
terrorist attack committed on American soil (although most news
sources refer to it as the second). Some of Hasan's colleagues
had noticed his ideological extremism, but did not report it. Why?
The likely answer is that American society, including the military,
have been indoctrinated by extreme multicultural tolerance and
political correctness (i.e., not giving offense to anyone). To
confront or report Hasan would have been to offend him and
presumably all Muslims. Such political correctness appears to be a
prejudice, contempt, and oppression directed at mainstream America
by the hardcore liberals who currently dominate the political
scene.
The pressure of
political correctness is so great that normally intelligent and
responsible people can feel intimidated not to do the right thing.
Even people who would be willing to face harsh realities and solve
difficult problems cannot do so without possibly incurring
negative repercussions from society, government, or their employer.
This is not to excuse those who did not speak up, but to emphasize
the reach and grip of political correctness.
Perhaps the
deadliest features of political correctness are: (A) it reinforces
denial, and (B) it prohibits offense to everyone except Americans,
thereby prompting contempt for America among Americans as well as
an insidious self-hatred. These features likely contributed to the
acceptance of the murders of Pvt. Long and of the 12 soldiers and
one civilian at Fort Hood. Acceptance, meaning: the tendency of
some to underestimate or pardon Hasan's and other terrorists'
actions as understandable anger at America. Wrong is right, and
right is wrong.
In response to the
Fort Hood attack, Admiral Mike Mullen told FOX News on 11/18/09,
"Diversity in our forces is one of its greatest
strengths." However, everyone knows that true diversity has
no connection to terrorism on American soil. Mullen did not have
to defend the military's policy on diveristy. The problem is
extremist Islamic ideology. Why can't we say that?! Or, why can't
we say that without always having to backtrack and repeatedly make
it clear that we do not have anything against moderate Muslims?
Why do we have to constantly reassure everyone that we value
diversity, even as American citizens are being murdered? Where is
the outrage over violent jihad? Where is the grief over the lives
that were lost? And why aren't moderate Muslims reassuring the
rest of us that they are participants in America's humanitarian
values and that they uphold the U.S. Constitution?
Political
correctness is ultimately self-destructive for America. Will
there be a FOURTH attack on American soil? Probably. Whatever
happened to the call for citizenry vigilance? In my essay Jordan: A Lesson in Vigilance I
quoted a speech given by King Abdullah after three hotels had been
attacked in Amman. Below is one paragraph from that speech.
|
I appeal to every
citizen--man and woman--of this country to consider himself or
herself a soldier and a security officer. Each one of you has a
responsibility to protect your country. Circumstances require each
and every citizen to be cautious and vigilant, and to cooperate
with the security services to prevent any attack on the security
and stability of this country. We must be united in confronting
these terrorists, who have neither a religion nor a
conscience.
[End of quote.]
|
Similar words should
have been spoken by America's leaders. Anyone who works with or
has any kind of contact with someone like Hasan, should follow King
Abdullah's instructions. United, we can stand up to terrorists
and political correctness, and we can save lives.
[*NOTE: The attack
on September 11, 2009, can be regarded as the first attack only if
we count the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 as a criminal
act rather than a terrorist attack; and only if we count all the
9/11 attacks--New York City, Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon--as one
attack rather than three separate attacks. Rightfully, the 1993
attack should be regarded as the REAL FIRST terrorist attack on
American soil.]
[**NOTE: Some T.V.
news commentators referred to Vice President Joe Biden and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton having campaigned against Obama
in the 2008 presidential race, specifically to their evaluations
that Obama was not prepared to be Commander in Chief. This
paragraph is an adaptation of those comments.] (Written
11/30/09: bibliography available.)
Addendum
Just recently, I
came across some writing by Van Gross, M.D., as posted on the
Daniel Pipes blog. Gross comments on his concept of
Sociological Psychosis in his attempt to understand Hasan.
|
A New Model: Sociological Psychosis
(by Van Gross, M.D.)
- The definition of "psychosis" must be entirely
reworked.
- Psychosis as an entity must be defined beyond its present
formulation--i.e. a disorder mostly set apart from cultural
triggers. Current definitions of psychosis include disorders like
schizophrenia which is believed to be heavily biological. That idea
has to be scrapped. Hasan is simply not the case of a schizophrenic
who happens to be Muslim. That biological tendency now dominating
psychiatry (not all of medicine by the way) is the reason in part
why a Hasan was not identified as psychotic and removed from his
job. It was not simply a case of political correctness dictating
"hands off the Muslim-American."
- Sociological Psychosis argues that the culture or religion
(such as Islam) that precipitates mental derangement must be
understood as the underpinning for someone "snapping"
rather than what is now the accepted view--i.e. someone snaps
because they are psychotic and their belief system is secondary to
an intrinsic brain disorder that warps their perceptions (I should
add that there is no universally accepted biological marker for
schizophrenia akin to insulin deficiency equaling
diabetes).
[End of quote.]
|
Although Gross'
new model differs from my working viewpoint, I think
both constructions can contribute to the attempt to understand the
terrorist mind. You might also refer back to my series on Post-Iraq Views of the New Year. This
is new territory in the field of psychiatry. If more professional
caretakers would work on objectively analyzing terrorist behavior,
this would help civilized peoples to fight the war on terror at a
grassroots level: something which is now a domestic necessity.
(Written 12/18/09)
Until we meet
again....... .......stay sane.
|
