Let us at least agree on the problems

I believe it is fair to assume there can be multiple, legitimate opinions on how to address a problem. The first step to assessing those opinions and options, is to define the problem. As a nation, though, we do not consistently define the problems to be addressed, which permits the politically expedient approach of blaming the other guy or taking statements or acts out of context. I am compelled to write this today after two events yesterday that I find frustrating. First, the politicians and pundits on every side provided analysis of Scott Brown's victory in the special Senate election in Massachusetts. What I learned yesterday is that the other guy is wrong and whatever the speaker favors has been endorsed. The other event I found frustrating yesterday was the congressional hearing before the House Armed Services Committee on the Fort Hood shootings. Oh come on, how can we expect to solve the problem if we do not acknowledge it was an act of terrorism? I recognize some may argue we do not know that it was an act of terrorism, that it may have simply been an act by a crazed individual and the word terrorism is inflammatory.

How is terrorism defined? Visual Thesaurus defines the term as follows:

• the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear; or
• the use of extreme fear in order to coerce people (especially for political reasons).

While the act was committed on a military base, the targets were known to be unarmed and not positioned for military action, especially by a member of their own force, effectively they were civilians. In conjunction with statements by the shooter, these definitions appear to be satisfied. If one is unwilling to accept that, I offer that the acts were intended to terrorize the victims and a broader population and therefore it was an act of terrorism.

Why will we not admit the obvious? Even President Obama acknowledged the effort to blow up the Northwestern flight to Detroit on Christmas Day was an "act of war", but he declined to call it a terrorist act and endorsed the position of treating the person who committed the "act of war" as a civilian with all associated privileges. What???

You may disagree with my position that the Fourth World War is underway, but can we at least agree the problems need to be defined, evaluated, discussed, communicated, and action taken? This seems such a simple proposition, why do we not demand it?