The Jihadist who infiltrated the U.S. Army’s officer corps
Posted by editor on 9 November 2009 at 5:58 pm UTC
[Dr. Walid Phares]
A conversation about sleeper-terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan with Dr. Walid Phares
By W. Thomas Smith Jr.
IN THE WAKE OF LAST WEEK’S JIHADIST TERRORIST ATTACK against a U.S. Army base in North America – specifically the attack launched by sleeper-terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan, an unfortunately commissioned U.S. Army psychiatrist and devout Muslim who, following his faith’s teaching to the letter, murdered 13 of his infidel enemies and wounded scores more at Fort Hood, Texas – numerous experts are defying politically correct convention and reiterating to an ill-informed American public what they (the experts) have been trying to get across to us since before 9/11:
The Jihadists are at war with the West. They are coming after us with every means available to them. They are capitalizing on our free institutions to do so, using corrupt media and weak politicians to facilitate their freedom of movement and disinformation campaigns. And they have infiltrated our national defense structure, a fact known to many for years and proven to all on Thursday, Nov. 5, six days before Veterans Day.
Chief among the outspoken experts on Jihadist terrorism (in the first few hours and days after Nov. 5) is Dr. Walid Phares, who directs the Future of Terrorism Project for the Washington, D.C.-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
According to Phares, Hasan was-and-is an indoctrinated Jihadist, who – lone wolf or not, linked to a specific Jihadist group or or not – acted with the intent to strike his enemy, America.
Responding indirectly to the current U.S. Administration’s reluctance to consider Hasan’s attack an act of terrorism, Phares, writing for FOX News, says, “What the world has witnessed this week in Texas cannot be described just as a ‘horrific outburst of violence’ directed at the American military, Instead it is part of a wider ideological war, generated by radicalization and inciting individuals to perform such acts. ‘Lone wolf’ or not, organized or not, fully self-aware perpetrator or not, influenced by overseas radicals or not, this massacre of servicemen has moved America from stage to another.”
Phares predicted the rise of the domestic Jihadist threat decades ago (clearly detailed in his book, Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America).
Discussing previous attempts to attack the U.S. military inside the confines of the U.S. homeland, he told Russia Today TV: “Jihadists targeting military on U.S. soil is strategic.”
We spoke with Dr. Phares, Monday.
W. THOMAS SMITH JR: Some commentators are saying it’s difficult to know what happened to Hasan; what made him tick, was he boiling inside for a while? We’ve heard commentary about the so-called “need” to be careful in our analysis. Your thoughts?
DR. WALID PHARES: What made Maj. Hasan tick is ideology. What made him attack that day at that hour is to be investigated. If our analysts, especially within the government, can’t figure out what makes a Jihadist – lone wolf or not – tick, we have a problem.
The U.S. government and many in the media are confused by the fact that he adhered to an ideology and used the narrative of that ideology for years, yet he was able to conceal it for so long. If the attack had taken place in Pakistan, Egypt, or even Saudi Arabia, with the same statements made by the perpetrator, neither authorities nor citizens would ask the question. It would be a given that it is Jihadi Salafist narrative. Officials would know immediately what they were dealing with. The “caution” we are told to follow here in the U.S. is political. It is not based on reason or any scientific logic.U.S. leaders must be precise in identifying the ideology, explain it to the public and at the same time warn citizens as regards unfair and illegal backlashes. I am not sure decision-makers are getting the best advice.
SMITH: Department of Homeland Security [DHS] Sec. Janet Napolitano says DHS officials are working with various groups around the country to thwart any possible anti-Muslim backlash following the shootings at Fort Hood. In your opinion, will there be a backlash, and is this DHS’s responsibility?
PHARES: Sec. Napolitano’s statement is shifting the debate from investigating an ideology responsible for the production of Jihadists, which is – or should be – the top national security consideration, to an unwarranted panic reaction about so-called backlashes. That’s what we almost had after 9/11. Apologists for Jihadism were trying to advance the theme that a mass backlash was happening and that this should be America’s top priority, shifting the debate from going after the Jihadists to fearing backlashes on the streets. The backlashes, as they were portrayed, never happened, because the American public by-and-large is mature, reasonable, and desires peace and civility.
Fact is, the more officials unwarrantedly talk about backlashes, as if they are imminent, the greater the risk of creating an environment which could make them happen. U.S. officials should instead be talking about Muslim resistance to the Jihadists. American leaders must call on all Americans, and especially Muslim-Americans to stand by their government as it uproots the Jihadi terror networks, and work on de-radicalization.
SMITH: Some media in the U.S. and the UK are linking the Fort Hood terrorist to the Sept. 11 terrorists. Does that surprise you?
PHARES: I read the Telegraph’s report about Hasan’s link to Jihadists. Well, the fingerprints of Jihadism are all over the place. Whether-or-not Hasan met or conspired with any known terrorist or radical Jihadist, is not the point. He himself was indoctrinated, and he made the decision to wage war or terror against unarmed U.S. military personnel on U.S. soil. That is enough to understand the essence of this case.
If the investigation reveals more physical links to terrorism, that should be examined thoroughly. In my analysis, any mass murder with Jihadi commitment is terrorism by all international convention. Problem is, the Administration is not likely to admit the ideological link. For if they do, it might collapse the expressed expertise of their advisors regarding “Arab and Muslim-world affairs.” The latter have pressed the Administration to abandon the ideological identification of the terrorists.
That said, I don’t think this policy will last too long for the simple fact that the Jihadists are not shy, and aren’t secretive about their doctrines. They have and will let us know very openly about their commitment through their actions immersed in doctrinal statements. On the other hand, it is unfortunate, that many in the blogosphere are not focusing on the ideology, but on religion. This is actually helping the apologists – and behind them Islamist lobbies – win the day.
SMITH: Sen. Joe Lieberman announced a Senate investigation into the Fort Hood attack. Lieberman, who of course chairs the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, says there were “strong warning signs” that Hasan was an “Islamist extremist.” Your thoughts?
PHARES: Sen. Lieberman’s call for an investigation of homegrown Jihadism is the only statement from the U.S. government that has made any sense so far. While the Administration is in denial and its opposition is in chaos, Lieberman’s clear statement is where the response to this terrorist attack must begin.
SMITH: It’s been reported that Hasan snapped because of his imminent deployment overseas. Others have said, he was angered by racist slurs.
PHARES: Such reports are equivalent to hallucinations, not sound analysis. That’s like suggesting there is a justification for Hasan’s snapping. He doesn’t like a decision made by a superior, so he goes and shoots that superior? If he snaps because of racial slurs, he would shoot the persons who allegedly insulted him? Hasan has been making Jihadi statements for years. In the modus operandi of Jihadists, they use any prevalent politically charged issue to build on it and incite for hatred.
What made me ponder – in addition to the fact that he clearly acted within the Jihadist model – is the fact that he was cold-blooded and very focused.I was given a document that shows Hasan applied to attend a Homeland Security Conference set at the George Washington University this year under the title, “Thinking Anew—Security Priorities for the Next Administration - Proceedings Report on the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force (Apr. 2008-Jan. 2009).” He signed-on as being affiliated with the Uniformed Services University of Health Services. For someone who simply “snapped,” it is highly unlikely that he would have thoroughly researched sophisticated events like these, which were attended by an elite group within Homeland Security.
In short, he could have perpetrated his Jihadi terror there. Any expert analyst will tell you that his drive was far more complex than his bloody act. All the arguments about anger, tension, and foreign policy not only do not hold water, but they are close to hallucinations. A man who participates in a high-level conference on Homeland Security of this kind, who has been active in the Jihadi ideological realm, and who massacres scores of American military personnel, is a Jihadi terrorist in fact.
SMITH: What do you make of the statements by Jihadists online, and on Facebook, etc., in support of Hasan?
PHARES: Well, that’s the easiest part: This is prologue-evidence to the nature of his mission. You will see more of this with time. But going beyond this, the real questions to address are the following:
Who was he in contact with – in terms of these activities – over the past years?
Who indoctrinated him? This is inescapable and has to be discovered?
Are there other similar cases like Hasan’s that we need to be attentive to?
I hope Sen. Lieberman’s initiative to investigate the matter in the Senate will be a first step. I hope we do it expeditiously before we are surprised again, dramatically by future Jihadi terrorists on U.S. soil.
SMITH: Reports describe Hasan as not exactly a conservative Muslim. Some in the media argue that “Hasan’s presence at the [strip] club paints a starkly different portrait of the alleged killer from that offered by his imam and family members, who have described him as a devout Muslim, and one who had difficulty finding a wife who would wear a head scarf and would pray five times a day.”
PHARES: In fact, it is just the opposite. If anything, his visits to such a club fit perfectly the psychological sphere he was floating in as a Jihadist. It has been established that indoctrinated Jihadists often visit places they deem evil to fill themselves with a deeper hatred for the society they are at war with. We must try to understand the differences between a devout religious person and a totalitarian zombie. I’ll will address this issue in the near future.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
Posted by editor on 1 November 2009 at 2:21 pm UTC
[Originally published at Family Security Matters]
By W. Thomas Smith Jr.
In the HBO film series, Band of Brothers, there is a 20-second scene wherein U.S. Army Airborne Maj. Dick Winters directs Capt. Herbert Sobel to salute him after Sobel attempts to avoid rendering the ancient military courtesy.
Of course, Sobel – a failed former company commander who had lost the confidence of his men (for a host of reasons) and as a consequence loses his company prior to the company’s shipping overseas – has nothing but disdain for Winters. After all, Winters once served as a lieutenant under Sobel in the company Sobel lost, which Winters ultimately gains.
Maj. Winters, now a combat-experienced field-grade officer, outranks the non-combat Capt. Sobel.
So when Sobel strolls past Winters in a chance coming-together that neither expects, Sobel avoids eye contact in order to avoid saluting Winters, who quickly though calmly calls the captain on his failure to salute a superior officer.
“Capt. Sobel, we salute the rank, not the man,” Winters says.
Sobel salutes. Winters returns the salute.
It brings to mind an incident years ago, which forever taught me the importance of respect for rank as a means of protecting the physical and even spiritual integrity of any military organization.
I was a young Marine lance corporal, who for several months had been thrown together with a combat-seasoned gunnery sergeant on a project overseen by the “gunny.”
Over time, gunny and I got to know one another pretty well. He shared stories about his time in Southeast Asia, as well as a few of his “exploits” with women from around the world. He talked a lot about his love of baseball. He told hilarious jokes. He also (in my presence) chuckled at the demonstrated-inexperience of certain Marine privates and PFCs – we called them “boots” — which made me feel like part of “the men’s club,” the unofficial albeit exclusive association of experienced “salty” Marines within our unit.
So when a new – somewhat uncouth and inarticulate – sergeant joined our ranks, I felt comfortable enough in my relationship with gunny to make a private comment about the new sergeant’s inability to properly conjugate a verb in spoken English.
Gunny exploded.
Leaping from his chair he went straight for me, his anger-reddening face inches from mine.
“Smith, you’re talking about a sergeant of Marines!” Gunny shouted. “Don’t you ever talk that way about a superior, boy! Do I make myself clear, lance corporal?!”
Gunny’s language was in fact a bit more colorful than that, but you get the point.
I did, and I never forgot it.
Fact is, we in the military respect rank like we respect flags, emblems, and other symbols of tradition and position. We exhibit that respect, and we always strive to quash displays or utterances of disrespect for rank.
That respect has less to do with the man (or woman) holding the rank than it does the rank itself (a difficult concept, I have discovered, for civilians with little or no military experience). Though it is far easier to exhibit respect – to include the rendering of military courtesy – and obedience to a superior officer if we have respect for that officer as being fair, capable, and competent.
Still we cannot escape the importance of rank in-and-of-itself, nor can we dismiss the fact that military rank is infinitely more important – perhaps it is even sacred – than civilian positions-of-authority in terms of protecting the structural integrity of an organization.
This doesn’t mean we blindly follow failed-men or unlawful orders (though we do sometimes have to follow men we don’t like and orders we don’t agree with).
It does however mean that – for those of us who serve or have served in the military – rank is as a flag. It may not be as personally dear to us as a flag – depending on the flag – but it must be respected and protected as a means of further protecting the soundness of a military organization if that organization is to remain structurally sound.
Winters was right, “We salute the rank, not the man.”
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. online at uswriter.com.
Navy Cross recipient Harrington to speak at Marine Corps Birthday Ball
Posted by editor on 1 November 2009 at 1:58 pm UTC
[Photograph – Myron Harrington while serving as advisor to the South Vietnamese Marines, Quang Tri Province, I Corps, 1972]
COL. MYRON CHARLES HARRINGTON, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.) will present the keynote address at the annual Marine Corps Birthday Ball to be held at Embassy Suites Hotel in Columbia, Saturday, Nov. 7, 2009.
A 1960 graduate of the Citadel, Harrington received the Navy Cross (an individual award for battlefield heroism second only to the Medal of Honor) for his actions as a Marine company commander – Delta Company, 1st Battalion, 5th Marines – during the bloody battle for the Vietnamese city of Hué (part of the broader Tet Offensive), 1968.
A portion of Harrington’s citation reads:
“…Disregarding his own safety, Captain Harrington then fearlessly maneuvered to the point of heaviest contact and, rallying his men, boldly led a determined assault against the enemy soldiers. Shouting words of encouragement to his men, he skillfully maneuvered his unit forward and directed the Marines’ fire upon the hostile emplacements. Largely due to his resolute determination and intrepid fighting spirit, his men overran the hostile positions and routed the North Vietnamese soldiers, accounting for twenty-five enemy soldiers confirmed killed. …”
Harrington went on to hold various posts in the Corps, including that of commanding officer, 24th Marine Amphibious Unit, Beirut, Lebanon, soon after the 1983 terrorist-bombing of the U.S. Marine Barracks in that city.
Retiring from the Corps in 1991, Harrington accepted the position as headmaster of Trident Academy in Mount Pleasant. He served in that capacity from 1992 until retirement in 2007, and was subsequently designated “Headmaster Emeritus.” Harrington currently serves as co-chair of the Medal of Honor Society’s 2010 Convention project. Hosted by the South Carolina State Guard Foundation and the Citadel, the convention will be held next year in Charleston.
[Col. Harrington]
The Marine Corps will officially recognize its 234th birthday with celebrations, worldwide, on dates (like Nov. 7) close to the official birth date (Nov. 10).
The celebration in Columbia will be hosted by the Greater Columbia Marine Foundation.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
NOTE: The opinions expressed in these articles are solely those of the author, and do not represent the opinions of World Defense Review and its affiliates. WDR accepts no responsibility whatsoever for the accuracy or inaccuracy of the content of this or any other story published on this website. Copyright and all rights for this story (and all other stories by the author) are held by the author.
Archives:
"Hunt for the Somali Pirates" airs soon on the National Geographic Channel.
When Somali pirates hijack the Maersk Alabama -- and international headlines -- Navy SEALs launch a sneak attack to rescue the ship's American captain. Pirate Hunters recounts the harrowing five days from hijack to final fatal shots, and reveals sophisticated Navy SEAL training methods that prepare the world's most elite reconnaissance teams for daring missions with no second chances.
J. Peter Pham, Ph.D. : 'Strategic Interests'
Ballots and Bullets: The Tale of the Two Somalias
[06 Jul 10]
Walid Phares, Ph.D.
Iran Global Terrorist Reach
[15 Jul 10]
Abigail R. Esman : 'International Desk'
Islamophobia
Is the rejection of radical Islam "anti-Muslim"?
[27 Jul 10]
Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker
The Roots of Washington's Failures in Dealing with "Rogue Regimes"
[01 Apr 10]
W. Thomas Smith Jr.
'Beyond the DropZone'
Intelligence and Analysis