On War # 321: 4GW Comes to Ft. Hood
William S. Lind 10 November 2009
Last week’s shootings at Ft. Hood, in which thirteen U. S. Soldiers were killed and 30 people wounded, appear to be a classic example of Fourth Generation war.
The shooter, U. S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, was a practicing Muslim. He sometimes wore traditional Islamic dress and carried a Koran. He reportedly cried “Allahu Akbar” before he opened fire.
Though American-born and a U.S. citizen (and army officer), Major Hasan appears to have transferred his primary loyalty away from the state to something else, Islam. For his new primary loyalty, he was willing to kill. That is what defines Fourth Generation war. This incident should put an end to the misinterpretation of 4GW that defines it as “what Mao did.” Mao Tse-tung’s wars were not 4GW. They were fought within the framework of the state, for political control of a state. Mao had nothing to do with the “leaderless resistance” last week’s shootings represent. Major Hasan’s motives transcended the political.
According to the November 9 Washington Post, a few hours before he opened fire, Major Hasan said to a neighbor, “I’m going to do good work for God.” The Establishment, which continues to pretend the state (or Globalist super-state) has a monopoly on primary loyalty, predictably proclaimed the shootings the actions of “a madman.” That is what old and passing orders always say about the first avatars of the coming order (or disorder). It’s how the old order whistles past the graveyard – its own graveyard. The cultural Marxists, leaping to the defense of “diversity,” their favorite poison for Western societies, claim Major Hasan’s massacre of his fellow soldiers does not represent Islam.
Sorry, but it represents Islam all too well. Islam does not recognize any separation between church and state. States have no legitimacy in Islam; legitimacy adheres only to the Ummah, the community of all believers. The only legitimate law is Sharia. All Muslims are commanded to wage jihad against all non-Islamics. Loyalty to Islam must be the believer’s primary loyalty. Nightwatch for 5 November writes:
Two years ago, a devout Pakistani cabdriver told Nightwatch that if Allah called him or any devout Muslim to go on jihad and to kill his family and even the riders in his cab, he must do it immediately. He made that statement calmly as a matter of fact, while driving north on US 1.
This was not the statement of an insane man, but of an educated man with a degree in engineering who was making ends meet; a devoted family man and a good cab driver. There are of course peaceful Islamics; peace be upon them. But peaceful Islamics are also lax Islamics.
The ongoing Islamic revival is converting more and more Muslims, especially young men, to its purer version of Islam. That is happening everywhere, including among Islamics in Europe and America. As Islamic Puritanism spreads, violence will spread with it. At the same time, it would be an error to think of 4GW threats within Western societies as confined to Islam.
The U.S. military has already seen soldiers kill other soldiers as part of gang-related activities. Gangs may be as important an alternate primary loyalty as religion. As the state loses its legitimacy, the variety of new primary loyalties that arise to replace it will be limitless. As this column has often warned, Fourth Generation war is not just something fought “over there.” It comes to a theater near you. That includes places like Ft. Hood.
Many 4GW entities know that the best way to deal with hostile state security forces, police as well as military, is to take them from within. Last week also saw the killing of five British soldiers in Afghanistan by an Afghan policeman working with their unit. Many police departments along the southern U.S. border are owned by the drug traffickers. The Establishment will attempt to label the massacre at Ft. Hood an “isolated incident.” On the contrary, it is just a foretaste of many more such actions to come.
How might states reverse that trend? Three things might help:
1. Stay out of Fourth Generation wars overseas. Intervening in areas of stateless disorder imports their disorder.
2. Be prepared to outlaw violent alternative primary loyalties, including some religions (which in the case of the U. S. would require Constitutional amendments). To those who argue that religious tolerance must be unlimited, I ask, would we tolerate the re-establishment of the Aztec religion, with its demand for ceaseless human sacrifices, on American soil? Of course not.
3. Strengthen the legitimacy of the state, which in Western societies usually means reducing, not augmenting, the power and intrusiveness of the central government. Nothing undermines the legitimacy of a state more effectively than attempts to “re-make” a society according to some ideology’s demands, as is now happening in the West in the name of cultural Marxism, aka “multiculturalism.”
A legitimate government defends its society’s traditional culture, it does not assault that culture. Ask not for whom the bells at Ft. Hood toll; they toll for the state.
William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation. To interview Mr. Lind, please contact (no e-mail available): Mr. William S. Lind Free Congress Foundation 1423 Powhatan Street, # 2 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Direct line: 703 837-0483
From a propaganda standpoint it’s awful to argue that we should ban Islam.
That radicalizes people.
It’s important to have a narrative for a society where Muslims want have loyalty for the state.
In Europe we didn’t get rid of the power that fundamental Christianity held by fighting it but by making no big deal about people being religious.
Framing those Imans that demand violent actions as criminals instead of fundamentalists like the UK propaganda doctrine suggests http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/04/uk.terrorism , sound like a better idea to win the loyality of Muslims for actions against those Imans.
The west has an interest that every Muslim in the US and Europe believes that true Islam is peaceful.
There a debate in the Islamic community whether Islam is peaceful.
It’s really our choice if we take the side of the Taliban in that debate and say that Islam is inherently violent or whether we take the side of peaceful Muslims.
I will respond to this thought provoking article with one I wrote in resposne to the Forth Hood Shootings and another inciident involving workplace violence in Orlando the day after. despite the different ideologies I believe to bridge the gap between conflcit and violence we must be more proactive in the pre-incident stages of these atatcks where people around these potentially violent people act on the early warning signs they see. I agree with Bill Lind on all but one point and that is we should outlaw extremism, not religion. If we respond and act accordingly when we see signs and signals that all to often evolve into violent actions we will stop those individuals or organizations with violent intent be it a terrosit, criminal or a person who can’t hanle life who decides to take it out violently on innocents. Article bellow:
Us or Them: The Best Strategy to Prevent Violence is Foreknowledge and Strength of Character
Is he a terrorist? Is he linked to an Islamic extremist group? If he is linked, how could he be a member of the United States Military? How could he be right under our noses and no one know whether he was a terrorist planning an attack on those he knew and worked with? All these questions and more surface in the aftermath of the Foot Hood killings; questions that should be asked as part of our efforts to understand and do everything in our power to prevent future acts of violence from occurring.
The day after the Foot Hood incident, another attack unfolded in Orlando Florida; a case of workplace violence that ended tragically in death and injury, as well. Some of the same questions asked by the survivors asked at Fort Hood were asked in Orlando: Why did it happen? How could this happen? How could a person we know commit such a heinous and terrifying act?
The questions are natural. We want to know ‘why’ in order to prevent future violence from occurring. This is a noble, yet very difficult goal to achieve because most of us will never experience violence in our lives, breeding a complacent mindset that says: “It will never happen here!
“It will never happen here” are words we cannot afford to utter, yet they always seem to follow in the aftermath of a shooting. I have written much on the signs and signals of crime and danger and it’s an important topic to attempt to understand. Here I want to focus on the criminal and the terrorist: are there any differences in how they act? How are they motivated? What is their level of commitment? Does the difference really matter when it comes to stopping their actions?
First let me say, I am a firm believer in Sun Tzu’s point: know your adversary. That stanza has stood the test of time and can make all the difference in the world when preparing to prevent violence and investigating in the aftermath. There is a second piece of the old Sun Tzu verse we seem to forget, and that is: “Know your enemy and KNOW YOURSELF and you will not lose in one hundred battles.” This is the powerful missing element that will allow us to stop these types of events from happening as they are unfolding, and better yet, prior to shots being fired. How? By understanding what makes a criminal or terrorist tick; by knowing the differences between the two; and how do those who would do us harm persevere, and how is that perseverance similar to how most good folks like ourselves strive to live our lives to the fullest, day in and day out, despite these tumultuous times?
Criminals and terrorists both have objectives. It does not matter to me whether they want to blow something up, steal something or commit murder. What does matter is that I know there are people out there plotting crimes and acts of terror, be it murder in a school by a young person who has lost their way; a worker who feels he is owed something from his employer; a jilted lover who feels betrayed; or the man who feels is religion has been mocked. What I do need to know is that people respond to these types of incidents differently. Some are emotionally and socially secure enough to let things roll off of them, like water off a duck’s back. Others have had a life full of hurt and seek counseling to deal with the pain of real or perceived hurt. There are those who are hurt and bold enough to confront and deal with the hurt in a way that may leave ill feelings yet gratification at dealing with the problem head on and creating a feeling of closure. Others lock up the hurt deep inside yet seem to be able to deal with it in a healthy way. Most times, individuals deal with these things and continue on with healthy productive lives. However those who would do us harm fail to cope with hurts and wrongs in a healthy way, and let perceived or real betrayal, anger, frustration, hurt, depression, anxiety, loss of control drive them to isolation, misguided thoughts, and possibly to plots to harm others. There is still time to find a bridge between us and them to prevent bad acts from taking place. There are those few, who, no matter what, will always deal in violence, but they are the minority; the sociopaths of the world who thrive on violence and doing others harm. Sociopaths dwell in a world all their own and will always stalk our world looking to do harm in ways that hurt or deprive others. But there are still others, not sociopaths but those who adopt a warped ideology or religious path to attempt to deal with their personal demons – and these individuals can be stopped if the rest of us are ever-alert to the signs and signals of danger, and if we possess the strength of character to reach out to stop it when red flags appear. Red flags may include behavioral changes, isolation, inappropriate or severe reactions to normal events, giving away belongings and extreme stress or conflict.
It comes down to doing what is right, even when it feels uncomfortable or we worry that we may be opening ourselves up to embarrassment or liability. The legal world needs to understand this as well. There is a vast difference between people attempting to help a person in extreme conflict in an effort to prevent violence and a person spreading rumors in an effort to disgrace or defame someone. Society should accept interventions, as legitimate even if we are wrong in our analysis when trying to root out violence. We will be wrong at times, yet most times we will intervene and prevent violence from unfolding or in a suicide type incident. If malicious intent is the reason behind our involvement, then the legal system can step in. Perhaps we should be seeking legal advice along with other collaborative efforts involving all professionals within an organization or community such as legal counsel, health professionals, law enforcement, friends and family, teachers etc, much earlier so the person in crisis is dealt with in the most delicate and professional way in an effort to prevent violence. Until we are ready to take that step, people will continue to ignore the signs, violence will continue to unfold, and in the aftermath we will continue to scratch our heads in shock and talk about all we knew before, but ignored. In the end, the fault lies in the person who commits an act of violence and takes the lives of others leaving his loved ones to suffer and grieve. But if we are truly serious about preventing these acts in the future, we must harness the power of what we know beforehand, combine that with the strength of character to intervene, share what we know with law enforcement, health professionals and others, and be part of the solution. I believe we can act proactively. And we must.