Two American-born citizens with military experience, one a veteran, the other a current soldier, committed public mayhem at the beginning of the new year: veteran Shamsud-Din Jabbar in New Orleans and decorated Green Beret Matthew Livelsberger in Las Vegas—the former case being much more destructive and lethal. Both events raise troubling questions about what caused these individuals to act as they did (from what we know). The causes are likely complex. There may be, in each case, a cause that can be called the major one, but it is doubtful that we can ever isolate a single sine-qua-non cause.
This is not how politics (the process by which people are governed on a day-to-day basis) typically approaches the issue. Consider the following as alternative major causes:
- Military experience;
- Access to motor vehicles;
- Haitians eating pets;
- The southern border;
- The supply chain;
- Sagittarius A*, the black hole at the center of our galaxy.
The president-elect of the United States chose the fourth explanation—see “Trump Doubles Down on Border Security Amid Domestic Terror Unease,” Wall Street Journal, January 2, 2025:
On Thursday, even after it was shown that 42-year old Shamsud-Din Jabbar wasn’t in the rented truck when it crossed the border, Trump still blamed the current administration.
“With the Biden ‘Open Border’s Policy’ I said, many times during Rallies, and elsewhere, that Radical Islamic Terrorism, and other forms of violent crime, will become so bad in America that it will become hard to even imagine or believe,” Trump wrote Thursday. “That time has come, only worse than ever imagined.”
An ancient philosopher would struggle to identify this declaration with a state pursuing the “social good.” What I have called “simplistic public policy” seems to be a standard output of politics, when it’s not simply arbitrary nonsense as William Riker might have said. Public choice theory tries to explain why. James Buchanan, one of the main conceptors of this strand of analysis, also developed a model of the state in which there is a stage (the “constitutional stage”) where politics can be rational and beneficial as a multiparty exchange where each and every individual holds a veto on the rules constraining day-to-day politics. Whether one agrees or not with this justification of the state, it is an impressive attempt to reconcile politics and liberty.
Of the possible major causes I listed above, No. 1 seems the most rational. A quite remarkable Wall Street Journal report just raised the issue of military men or veterans involved in acts of public violence (Vera Bergengruen, Nancy A. Youssef, and Tawnell D. Hobbs, “‘I Only Knew How to Do One Thing’: New Year’s Violence Resurrects the Dark Side of Military Life,” January 6, 2025:
“Transitioning out of the service is probably one of the most challenging things an individual could do,” said retired Army Lt. Col. Sam Andrews, who is on the board of directors for Bravo Zulu House, a transitional living facility for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder and addiction. “We lose our sense of purpose, we lose our sense of tribe, we lose our sense of meaning.” …
According to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or Start, almost 16% of extremists who have committed criminal offenses in the U.S. since 1990 had military backgrounds.
As argued by Hayek, the “sense of tribe,” to which collectivism (and nationalism) represents the modern form, is a mortal enemy of the free society. The military defenders of a free society should instead be instilled with a sense of individualism, a difficult task if that sentiment has become shunned in society. And how is this compatible with what is required from soldiers facing individual death? Certainly, the defenders of a free society should not be trained as “killing machines,” notwithstanding what Mr. Trump wrote in a 2019 tweet. These considerations raise a Gordian knot of related problems, which include “forever wars,” the need to defend liberty by force against international thugs, and perhaps the unavoidability of some militarily powerful and freedom-oriented state capable of informally playing a role of international gendarme given the extreme danger if not the impossibility of a world state. An alliance of states representing free or hopefully mostly-free individuals like NATO may be another part of the puzzle’s solution (see my libertarian fable on that).
Raw political utterances are not the solution.
******************************
READER COMMENTS
Craig
Jan 8 2025 at 11:22am
“The military defenders of a free society should instead be instilled with a sense of individualism”
If that ‘corporate culture’ worked they’d do it, but that’s not what they do. Haircut, uniform, shared experiences, its about creating a corporate culture of obedience and conformity because….for military purposes…..that works.
Jon Murphy
Jan 8 2025 at 11:49am
And yet, our military is among (if not the most) individualistic in the world. Commanders at all levels are encouraged to be flexible and adapt to changing conditions on the ground. Improv is extremely important.
Of course, A shared sense of purpose is important too.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 8 2025 at 11:53am
I know, Craig, combining military discipline with an individualist philosophy and spirit is not a simple problem. But didn’t it work in the American Revolution? Doesn’t it work in Switzerland (granted that their army has not really been tested)? Doesn’t it partly work in Ukraine? Didn’t it partly work in WWII? Under which conditions does it work? Couldn’t it work with a volunteer army? One answer would be that it only works in a defensive war “on my turf”. But defending what? What is my turf? Isn’t the free world (or partly free world) worth defending?
Of course, these issues need to be analyzed with methodological individualism. See Geoffrey Brennan and Gordon Tullock, “An Economic Theory of Military Tactic: Methodological Individualism at War” (Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 3 [1982], pp. 225-242).
steve
Jan 8 2025 at 1:13pm
I am not really sure what you mean by soldiers needing a sense of individualism. There have been lots of studies on what leads soldiers to fight or not fight well. It’s pretty clear that on the battlefield soldiers arent really fighting for ideals like freedom. What matters is fighting for each other to carry out your mission. Teamwork is key. As Jon notes our military allows for a lot of decision making at lower levels than is common in other militaries but it still comes down to groups of soldiers working with each other.
I certainly hope you arent referring to the supposed warrior culture some people idolize. Those people seem to believe that soldiers should be warriors, meaning they all individually decide what is right or wrong and not held back by concerns for or about others.
Steve
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 9 2025 at 4:09pm
Steve: Three points about your interesting comment. By soldiers needing a sense of individualism, I meant soldiers who are not defending their tribe or a society of bees.
Second, it is not sure that “soldiers are fighting for each other to carry out your [their] mission”; at least the statement needs to be qualified. If soldiers naturally behaved like sacrificial lambs, the British soldiers would not have had red coats. There again, methodological individualism helps us to understand social reality: see Geoffrey Brennan and Gordon Tullock, “An Economic Theory of Military Tactic: Methodological Individualism at War” (Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 3 [1982], pp. 225-242).
Third, I am not sure what you mean with “warrior culture.” I certainly think that each soldier has an individual moral responsibility, which is recognized in any civilized army. For example, he cannot participate in war crimes. As General Paul Selva said, “we take our values to war.”
nobody.really
Jan 8 2025 at 1:14pm
In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt argues that humans evolved to be “10% bee”—that is, humans tend to have a collectivist mode that can be triggered by threat. In other words, humans do not behave solely as individuals or as a collective; we behave in both ways, varying based on circumstance.
Because people vary, we might imagine that this is not true of ALL humans. Some may have purely individualistic qualities; we might call them “sociopaths.” And we might imagine that societies have evolved as they did because societies dominated by individualists fail when confronted by societies with a higher degree of group cohesion (think Athens and Sparta). Thus, I wonder if Hayek engages in the classic libertarian practice of assuming that free societies are spontaneous and self-maintaining—rather than the result of group effort and protection.
As political leaders go, Donald Trump seems more individualistic and transactional. To take one example, while many people regard marriage as a not-quite-individualistic institution, it is not clear that Trump has embraced that view. Admittedly, Trump makes appeals to group dynamics (a/k/a engages in demagoguery), but I can’t tell if he believes in what he says or merely panders when it works.
nobody.really
Jan 8 2025 at 1:23pm
For what it’s worth, I see Jesus as a big advocate of transcending tribalism. At various points–and especially in the parable of the Good Samaritan–Jesus condemns the heros of his own tribe (priests, scribes, pharacies) and praises individuals who act appropriately even when those individuals belong to rival tribes.
True, Jesus also spoke of “judging nations,” which suggests a kind of collectivist perspective–so there’s that.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 9 2025 at 4:29pm
Nobody: The problem (if we can call reality a problem) is that “group effort and protection” or any collective action can only be explained in terms of individual preferences, constraints, and choices.
By “individualist” I don’t mean autistic or anything similar. I mean somebody who adopts an ethics of reciprocity or follows rules (“conventions”) consistent with such an ethics because it is in his self-interest to do so. A good, short, non-technical book about that (albeit, not exhaustive) is James Buchanan’s Why I, Too, Am Not a Conservative. A good introduction to Hayek is the first part of his Law, Legislation, and Liberty.
Jose Pablo
Jan 8 2025 at 11:43am
The president-elect of the United States chose the fourth explanation
Nah!, I don’t see Trump so easily subject to confirmation bias. His mental processes are sophisticated enough to allow him to overcome that risk (which, by the way, we all struggle to manage).
Transitioning out of the service is probably one of the most challenging things an individual could do
As a matter of fact, for most of human history, warriors were a class, limited in number, and dedicated only to wage war or to train to wage war, all their lives. “To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths / Of all the western stars, until I die / (…)/ To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield” as Tennesson beautifully put it.
This Napoleonic idea that normal individuals could transition from living civilized lives to the nightmare of war and back to civilized lives was always a very difficult achievement. War is a destroyer of the human soul.
the need to defend liberty by force against international thugs, and perhaps the unavoidability of some militarily powerful and freedom-oriented state capable of informally playing the role of international gendarme
As the reign of Trump the Second will probe, trying to defend individual liberty (the only kind of liberty) by raising armies and through violence and war can only lead to the freedom-oriented state behaving more and more like the thugs.
There is an inescapable collective language, feeling, and behavior related to “armies” and “wars”. And they are incompatible with liberty and individual dignity.
No matter how good the intentions of raising and beefing the “army of liberty”. That, “the army of (individual) liberty”, is one of the worst oxymorons ever entertained by humankind.
steve
Jan 8 2025 at 2:36pm
Standing armies were actually a bit unusual prior to about 1500. They are expensive so most places couldn’t afford them. Local royalty/warlords often had private guards/knights/soldiers but in wars a large number of the fighters would be peasants with highly variable training. Those peasants went back to farming after the war was over.
I would think that if anything its the kind of wars we are fighting that may cause more issues. (To be clear, there have always been guys who dont cope well after going to war. Some people arent meant for war and some things are hard to cope with.) We had constant deployments with little time at home which broke up a lot of families. The kind of war we have fought recently is different in that there are no clear lines of battle so there was no place that was ever really safe.
Steve
Jon Murphy
Jan 9 2025 at 8:41am
I assume you’re being sarcastic here?
Jose Pablo
Jan 9 2025 at 11:08am
No Jon, I honestly believe we all strugle to manage our confirmation bias …
(Although you do particularly well on that regard)
Jon Murphy
Jan 9 2025 at 6:12pm
I meant in regards to Trump. He explicitly blamed immigration and the Southern border.
Jose Pablo
Jan 10 2025 at 11:42am
Yes, Jon, it was being sarcastic. Although after your question, I think that Trump is, very wisely, appealing to a lot of his voters confirmation bias much more than indulging in his own bias.
Of course, every self-respecting politician do so. The main difference is, I think, that Trump is a “natural”. He doesn’t need to read Machiavelli to plotter that kind of plan to increase their acceptance among his consituency.
In Kahneman’s terms, he can very succesfully appeal to his base using his brain system 1.
nobody.really
Jan 8 2025 at 12:20pm
People often refer to “discrimination” when they mean “undue discrimination.” This shorthand may do no harm—provided people recall that it IS a shorthand and recognize that undue discrimination arises within a larger context of making necessary discriminations.
Likewise, people often refer to “causation” when they mean “proximate causation.” Again, this shorthand may do no harm—provided people recall that judging a cause as “proximate” reflects, well, a judgement, and rational people can make different judgments.
Sometimes people speak of “but-for causation”—answering the question, “In the absence of [the cause hypothesized], would we experience [the outcome under discussion]?” While but-for causation has the conceptual rigor that proximate causation lacks, but-for causation often lacks utility. When asked the cause of inflation, or someone’s divorce, or the outcome of the last election, I respond with, “The cause was the Big Bang: But for the Big Bang, I suspect none of this would have happened.” (I guess this is my version of the Sagitarius A* example.) I believe the Big Bang qualifies as a but-for cause of pretty much everything I experience (with the possible exception of conceptual matters such as logic/mathematics)—but the Big Bang rarely qualifies as the most proximate cause.
“You ever looked at the bottles of Scope in a supermarket? And they’ve got the regular size, the economy size, the extra large … and the gift size. Can you imagine getting a bottle of Scope … as a gift? I can picture some psychopath, he only needs ONE MORE THING to send him over the edge, he walks to his mailbox: ‘Dum de dum, what’s this? Scope? Scope! SCOPE!!! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!’ Up on the roof with a Magnum, BLAM, nine dead—and they blame Marine training.”
George Carlin (discussing proximate causation)
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 9 2025 at 4:44pm
Nobody: It seems to me that in science and social science, a cause is a (relatively) proximate “but for” cause. It refers to a counterfactual that, if it had happened, the effect would not have followed.
Monte
Jan 8 2025 at 1:23pm
Other than entertaining the possibility that Sagittarius A* as an all-powerful, all-consuming force of nature that influences our every thought and deed, there’s a lot to quibble with here.
Radicalization most often occurs at the intersection of politics and religion, not in the military. Lt. Col. Andrews perspective is rather unique in that he’s dealing with veterans suffering from PTSD and addiction. The transition from military to civilian life for most veterans is normative. In fact, that is when we rediscover our individuality and a new sense or purpose.
Many acts of terrorism have been perpetrated by civilians with little to no military background (Faisal Shahzad, Carlos Bledsoe, David Headley, Richard Reid, the Newburgh 4, the Tsarov brothers, ad infinitum). Military experience, both physically and emotionally, is positively transformative for most of us. Scapegoating that experience as a likely catalyst for radicalization is fallacious reasoning.
MarkW
Jan 8 2025 at 2:49pm
I’m going with ‘7. None of the above’. Because I don’t believe there is a common factor between the two cases. Neither of the attackers relied on military expertise in executing their attacks. As others have pointed out, most terrorists don’t have military experience. And not only that but in the past, a far greater percentage of American men spent time in the military — not just during the world wars but as recently as the Korean and Vietnamese wars when the draft was still in effect. Attacks like the ones we just had were entirely feasible in the past, and yet they did not happen. Trump’s explanation is pernicious BS, of course, but I really see no solid basis for believing any of 1-6.
Ahmed Fares
Jan 9 2025 at 1:30am
This explains everything. The rest is just noise.
New Orleans terrorist Shamsud Din Jabbar’s complicated love life with three ex-wives and more ‘paramours’
Jon Murphy
Jan 9 2025 at 8:42am
If all it takes is a complicated love life, there’d be way more violence in the world than there is.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 9 2025 at 11:27am
Ahmed: What Jon said. Moreover, in polygamous Muslim societies, you might expect less violence since young and poor men have no love life at all and would be the paragon of peacefulness.
Ahmed Fares
Jan 9 2025 at 3:27pm
Not women troubles, but financial problems caused by women troubles plus a failed business.
Suicide by jihad.
Jon Murphy
Jan 9 2025 at 6:14pm
If all it took were financial troubles and a complicated love life, there would be way more violence than there is.
Jose Pablo
Jan 10 2025 at 12:04pm
All it takes for having “more violence” is allowing the tortured and violent souls that human males are, easy access to guns.
Jose Pablo
Jan 9 2025 at 11:22am
the unavoidability of some militarily powerful and freedom-oriented state
It is interesting the historic persistance of this concept. Up to some point you can say that it was the idea informing the expansion on the Roman empire: “bringing” civilization to the barbarian tribes.
And definitely it was the idea of the Napoleonic armies, expanding the “blessing” of the French Revolution to all Europe. Helping the European people to get rid of their old regime tyrants.
It is never appreciatted. People can be so unthankful and arrogant!
Not in 58 bc Gaul, not in 1808 Spain, not in 1968 Vietnan, not in 2001 Afghanistan … At yet, very brilliant people still embrace the idea of the “armies of liberty”. Maybe blinded by one (of many) possible interpretation of WWII.
The path to individual liberty of Ghandi’s India or Mandela’s South Africa (or King’s “Black America”), certainly sounds like a much more fruitful path to that end.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 9 2025 at 11:47am
Jose: The examples of French revolutionary and Napoleonic armies are well taken, but note that they were not exactly defensive actions. The Roman empire, whatever its drawbacks, certainly reduced violence for ordinary people, which is why it was popular: see Walter Scheidel’s Escape from Rome.
I don’t think that pacifism–“turn the other cheek” or “peace through submission”–works, either in theory or in history, except perhaps in unusual circumstances and with sacrificial lambs. It did not work for the Thibetans, the slaves, the Jews, or the Ukrainians after the invasion of Crimea, not to mention the years preceding WWII. If it worked, the best strategy against thieves and murderers would be to forego self-defense. Again, I submit, who attacks first and how to deter these actions is the name of the game.
nobody.really
Jan 9 2025 at 2:04pm
Popular with some, maybe.
David Seltzer
Jan 9 2025 at 8:13pm
Pierre: Complex issue here. “16% of extremists who have committed criminal offenses in the U.S. since 1990 had military backgrounds.” 84% didn’t.
Jon Murphy commented: “And yet, our military is among (if not the most) individualistic in the world. Commanders at all levels are encouraged to be flexible and adapt to changing conditions on the ground. Improv is extremely important. Of course, A shared sense of purpose is important too.” My experience in one of the more dire military possible conflicts confirms Jon’s comment. In 1962 I was stationed at a South China Sea air base. I was the first mech in an ASW flight crew. During the Cuban Missile Crises, our squadron conducted nuclear bomb loading exercises. The device was a replica and the real bad boy was in Guam. The drill took four hours and was conducted by a leader with a secret clearance. Each crew member was asked if they believed the use of nuclear weapons was morally repugnant. If so, they were given the choice of not being on a mission where the device would be deployed. I can recall the the executive officer asking the question of a nineteen year old crew member, me, having grave concerns. still each of us was given a choice. Those willing to sign a letter of pledge did so. others who didn’t would be reassigned.
Jose Pablo
Jan 10 2025 at 12:00pm
It did not work for the Thibetans, the slaves, the Jews, or the Ukrainians after the invasion of Crimea, not to mention the years preceding WWII.
The existance of “some militarily powerful and freedom-oriented state” didn’t work in any of these cases either.
Having a powerful army is very much like having a powerful gun. It can very well serve the purpose of spreading tyrany instead of the purpose of spreading liberty.
At least with the “peaceful resistance approach” you are following the Hippocratic principle of causing no harm. Even if it didn’t work for you.
The forever abolition of all existing armies is an extremely beneficial situation. So much so, to be worth the risks of moving towards it unilateraly. Even more taking into account than the alternative is extremely risky and its end-game could, very likely, be the utterly destruction of the planet.
If it worked, the best strategy against thieves and murderers would be to forego self-defense
Well you can argue that this is the strategy followed in Europe (where the self-defense bar is extremely high) and it have worked better to detter thieves and murderers
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 12 2025 at 10:07pm
Jose: You know I disagree. A few short rejoinders…
It depends harm to whom. If your wife or girlfriend is attacked and you offer no resistance, it may not be very Hippocratic for her.
Again, it depends for whom. It works better for a murderer than for his disarmed victim. It works better for a burglar and his impotent victims. (Have you looked at the statistics for hot burglaries in England compared to the U.S.? Or at the theft of bicycles in Europe?) A public ban on armed self-defense would certainly not have worked better for the ones who were next in the mass killer’s sight at the Greenwood Park Mall.
Finally, what would happen if policemen or private bodyguards tried non-resistance? What about forbidding the private ownership of cars? Or at least their renting by private individuals? What I have called “simplistic public policies” redistribute utility from actual victims to potential victims.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 12 2025 at 10:18pm
Jose: Of course, I am not proposing to ban peaceful resistance. Any individual (or voluntary group of individuals) who wants to try it must be free to, for himself. Similarly, a wife or girlfriend who was risk-seeker enough to live with the guy must of course be allowed to.
Who knows, perhaps they will prove that theirs is an efficient new lifestyle.
Jose Pablo
Jan 10 2025 at 12:29pm
Again, I submit, who attacks first
That’s very far from being a clear cut criteria.
For instance, would it had been Canada joining the Warsaw Pact in the 60s a “first attack” on America? Could Russia consider Ukraine entertaining the idea of joining NATO a “first attack” on them?
Can the jews settlements be considered a “first attack” on Palestinians?
How different are (as “first attacks”) Russia invading Poland in 1939 vs Russia invading Ukraine in 2022?
If they are both the same as far as the doctrine of first attacks is concerned, why did they trigger very different reactions from the French and English “military powerful and freedom-oriented states“?
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 12 2025 at 9:38pm
Jose: I wonder if who attacks first may not be one of the easiest questions in economics and political philosophy. Certainly easier than who committed a microaggression or is Joe’s ideas a negative externality or is tax theft or slavery? (The collective aspects of these questions make them more complex but the interindividual case provides a relatively clear model.)
Jose Pablo
Jan 10 2025 at 3:29pm
No. 1 seems the most rational
In reality the fact that both are males is the most rational explanations.
AFAIK (with the possible exception of Tashfeen Malik (San Bernardino 2015) since the attack was lead by her, male, husband), 100% of the terrorist attacks in US soil has been performed by males.
The same is also true, (99%) for mass shootings.
Deporting males from the US and banning them to reenter the coutnry will no doubt result in a much more peaceful country. American females can, like many other species do, move abroad during mating season.
And if we move all American males to Greenland and stablish a free trade agreement with that (in the future) very violent country the economic consequences of such deportation would be barely noticed.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 12 2025 at 9:29pm
Jose: You write:
But also more submissive. Like in McGoohan’s The Prisoner? Or Huxley’s Brave New World? See Lott and Kenny, “Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?” Journal of Political Economy (1999).