In their editorial on the murder of four Marines in Chattanooga yesterday, the editors of the Wall Street Journal immediately leap to a number hasty conclusions:
- That it was a terrorist attack. Although given the facts as we know them now it seems likely it still seems premature to me to draw that conclusion. Let’s let the investigation take its course.
- That the attack was jihadist. This is something we simply don’t know at this time and it seems irresponsible to me to make that claim at this point.
- That it was inspired by DAESH. Is there actual evidence of that?
- That allowing or even requiring soldiers to carry sidearms on domestic military bases would do more good than harm. I have a vague recollection of a popular film of last year on the murder of some soldiers by another soldier using a sidearm. Which is more likely? That soldiers will be able to defend themselves successfully using their sidearms in the case of a terrorist attack at a military base on U. S. soil or that stressed, depressed, or psychotic soldiers will kill their fellows with one? That’s a question not an assertion. I’d like to see the evidence.
- That there is some level of surveillance that would have prevented the attack. What surveillance measures not presently in place would have prevented this particular atrocity? Since we know so little about it, I can’t imagine they would have any idea. Of whom? Let me propose an alternative conjecture: that at the present level of personal empowerment in a country with as many people as the United States there is little that can be done to prevent occasional spree killings.
Allow me to point out a few facts. Some are quite uncomfortable.
- By far the largest number of murders inspired by terrorism in the United States have been perpetrated by jihadis.
- In 100% of the murders in the United States perpetrated by jihadis the perpetrators were Sunni Muslims.
- In both of the terrorist attacks on U. S. military bases one or both of the perpetrators’ parents were Palestinians.
- The greatest number of murders in terrorist attacks in the U. S. were not perpetrated using firearms.
- Firearms are easy to come by in the United States and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Trying to eliminate terrorist attacks by going after the sale of firearms is, to put it coarsely, like trying to piss up a rope.
- 80% of imams in the United States are foreign-born.
- The Internet is everywhere and the cost of restricting access to it will unquestionably be greater than the cost of allowing access to it.
Somewhere in all of that mish-mosh I think there are mitigating strategies but they sure aren’t the ones I’m seeing being proposed.
Guns are a fact of life in the US. They are everywhere and easy to obtain. The remedies needed in this country to try to stop the occasional spree killings probably wouldn’t work for long and would completely alter the way we live. Wont happen.
But left unsaid is that the number of terror killings compared with all of our other killings is tiny, about 0.1% of our homicides. Most years it barely makes double digits. We already spend billions, how much more do we want to spend?
On soldiers carrying guns, I would actually be more concerned about suicide, unless carrying weapons was mandatory. Requiring them to carry their guns when going out drinking sounds like a bad idea. On the suicide issue, I know that the Israelis saw a drop off in suicides when they stopped letting soldiers take weapons home on weekends. Since suicide is often an impulsive act, that would make sense.
Steve
If I have not made it clear, I do not favor increasing surveillance or hardening of targets to reduce the likelihood of terrorist attack. I think that either of those measures will do little to accomplish their intended results. I’d go a little farther. I think that neither the present level of surveillance nor military activity are cost-effective ways of accomplishing the results they have presumably been intended to accomplish.
First a question. What is the origin of these so-called gun free zones on military bases & such? To me that just seems like the usual order of business for the military for a long time. Even infantry don’t need to carry their weapons that often when not in combat. So unless the critics can point out some specific changes, especially changes that have been forced on the military by politicians, this sounds like more asinine posturing to me. (Shocking, I know!)
Second, perhaps some of these problems could have been avoided by not importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims into the country, especially post-9/11. But the “Diversity is Strength” assholes (which classification includes every Democrat and all Republican leadership) will classify me as an enemy of humanity as bad as Hitler or the Duke boys for suggesting they’re wrong.
I think that’s overly broad. Indonesian, Turkish, and even Iranian Muslims have not been shooting up military bases or flying airplanes into buildings. In increasing fineness of discrimination they have been
a) Muslim
b) Arabs
c) not from areas formerly part of the Seljuk Empire
The Tsarnaev brothers are an interesting (and distressing) exception to that rule. I’m just casting around but the issue there may be refugee status.
It seems to me that Muslim refugees would be much happier in Indonesia or Nigeria, which certainly are in a position to accept more refugees than they do. They are majority Muslim after all. Indeed, the countries might benefit by them. And the refugees wouldn’t be subject to all of that prejudice because they’re Muslims.
Guns have always been highly restricted and regulated on military bases. The only place where personal firearms are allowed is in military housing, and then only if they are registered with the base armory. The idea that general military members (or DoD civilians) should be able walk around on base packing is just plain dumb and unnecessary.
What about posting several military personel at some of these recuitment centers who carry weapons in an otherwise gun-free zone?
“But left unsaid is that the number of terror killings compared with all of our other killings is tiny, about 0.1% of our homicides.”
Just a nuisance. I’m sure that’s how their families look at it too.
“Just a nuisance. I’m sure that’s how their families look at it too.”
We spend $38 billion a year at the Federal level on Homeland Security. Who knows how much at the state level. How much more do you want to spend? If you want to keep Muslims out, what are the economic consequences of not issuing visas to any Muslims anymore? Besides, it is almost always the second generation ones that are the problem. Do you propose shipping them all out? What consequences does that have? Using the broadest definitions possible, we are getting about 10 killings a year. What makes these so much more important than the other 15,990 that are killed in homicides? And if American lives are suddenly so important to you, why do you oppose spending on health care?
Steve
Recruiting centers are more difficult, particularly since they are usually leased properties in strip malls. I don’t think armed guards are a sustainable option – at the end of the day they will always be vulnerable since they have to, by definition, be open and welcoming to the public.
In addition to Andy’s observation above, I’m skeptical about hardening targets other than strategic targets as an approach to preventing terrorist attacks. IMO it’s better for a would-be terrorist to attack a military base than it would be for them to attack a primary school. There are more than 100,000 schools in the U. S. We’re not going to militarize all of them. They’re close enough as it is.
Thanks for the confirmation, Andy.
Steve shows the usual Democratic attitude to immigration problems: “We haven’t done anything in the past, so we must not do anything in the future except let even more people in to the country.”
Expanding on the question of having guns at recruiting centers — I heard an unsubstantiated remark, from an ex-military man, that even though weapons are not allowed at these centers it is not uncommon for someone to nevertheless carry a concealed weapon. There is also an unsubstantiated report that an unauthorized concealed weapon was present at the first stop made by the TN shooter — where unexpected shots were fired back. The shooter fled and went to the second location where he was able to mow down multiple unarmed people, resulting in most if not all of the fatalities. I say “most,” as I’m unsure which location the Navy officer, the eventual 5th fatality, was at when he was shot.
“Steve shows the usual Democratic attitude to immigration problems: “We haven’t done anything in the past, so we must not do anything in the future except let even more people in to the country.—
Nope, just saying there would be consequences from not letting any Muslims enter the country.
Steve