Mind your business.

Monday, November 9, 2009

A Libertarian Perspective On The Fort Hood Shooting Massacre

The shooting massacre perpetrated by Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan at Ft. Hood last week represents yet another failure of government, and a reminder that our present big-government, warfare-state policies are not keeping Americans safe from more terrorist attacks.

We've spent billions of dollars and thousands of young American lives destabilizing the Middle East with an aggressive nation-building policy and for all that, we could not prevent a terrorist attack on our own soil, in a highly secure and militarized area, against the very people who are fighting our "Global War on Terror."

I hardly think it is premature any longer to call this a terrorist attack with ideological purposes, not a criminal act by a mere lunatic. The evidence is overwhelming. The media consistently reported all weekend that eyewitnesses to the shooting heard Nidal Hasan shouting "Allahu Akbar!"

ABC News reports today that "U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda" and that he did make contact with two of the 9/11 hijackers years ago in San Diego, resulting in an intensive FBI investigation.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that Hasan attended mosque in Virginia with a radically militant imam (who published a blog post this morning entitled Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing). See how the pieces fit together?

The mainstream media has taken great pains since November 5th not to "jump to any conclusions" about the potentially ideological motivations behind the gunman's attack, but seemed to be in quite a hurry to jump to the conclusion that he was simply suffering from harassment and PTSD, and just "snapped."

But if this was an ideologically-motivated, terrorist attack perpetrated by a militant Islamic Jihadi, what does that say about the U.S.-led Global War on Terror? That we need to rethink it and quickly! Pouring billions of dollars and priceless American blood into the Middle East has very little to do with our safety here at home.

This is especially true when our intelligence agencies can know for months ahead of time that a U.S. military officer with previously investigated connections to two of the 9-11 hijackers is using electronic means to connect with known terrorist groups- and yet do nothing to stop last week's deadly terror attack.

Instead of a policy of more, more, more- more spending, more troops, more wars, more nation building, more government; we need a policy of less, less, less! We need to focus our mission on fewer objectives by excluding the stuff that doesn't really make America safer (like protecting Japan from North Korea or Poland from Russia).

We need to streamline our military's size, scope, and competencies to focus on counter-terrorism efforts and better use of intelligence. We need to get better results at a lower cost by sending in five guys to apprehend would-be terrorists like Hasan, instead of fifty-thousand guys to fight a local, tribal battle on the other side of the world.

That's a libertarian perspective on this grave matter.

Editor's note: I want to express my deepest condolences to the families of the victims of this terrible attack, and my most fervent prayers for the safe, happy, and blessed repose of the victims' bodies and souls.


  1. I agree that it is not premature to state that this was a terrorist attack. I think that this attack was allowed to occur more so due to political correctness than because of us being overseas.

    Do you think that Muslims should have an extra security check to be able to serve in the military?

  2. Well I agree that us being overseas didn't cause this to occur- but my point is that fighting against an Afghan tribe (the Pashtun people that make up the Taliban) halfway around the world doesn't have a lot to do with our safety and costs us so much.

    Stopping this guy has everything to do with our safety and would have cost us so little and should have been so easy.

    As for your question- no I don't think Muslims should have an extra security check by simple virtue of their religion, because I don't know that statistically they are any more likely to be a security threat than a Christian or atheist (feel free to fact check me on that).

    All I'm asking is that if someone was already investigated by the FBI for hanging out with two of the 9-11 hijackers, and then our intelligence services discover that he's trying to make contact with Al-Qaeda- that for heaven's sake, we pull the man out of active service and investigate him again!

  3. In general the problem with government is always too much focus on the wrong things and too little focus on the right things. That is because a politician's main job is to keep his or her job. They must do so by remaining appealing to the masses, who always want what seems to be (temporarily) expedient rather than actually right or, in the long term, most helpful.

  4. Yup! Good summation- I totally agree.

  5. I want my government to do two things:

    Protect our borders from illegal immigration, and...

    Protect our country from Radical Islamic terrorism.

    Beyond that, government is best which governs essentially not at all.

    Take all the money we're throwing into stupid-ass social programs and divert it to building our US Military 100 times over!!

  6. I agree that government should remain minimal, and that our Federal Government should mostly restrict itself to the role of defense from foreign aggression. To do that job well, I think it doesn't need to get bigger, but to get smaller, more streamlined, and more focused on clearer objectives.


Ledger Nano S - The secure hardware wallet