We have suffered another radical Islamic terror attack. Three words, “radical Islamic terror” are key. We all are shocked and saddened by this senseless, tragic and violent loss. An incident, that overnight has become the worst mass shooting event in our history.
As the information trickles in and we struggle to understand, we’ll devalue the lives of those that died if we don’t take the time to try and learn lessons from this attack. At the core, the nation’s failure to acknowledge the three key words I used in the first sentence is central to avoid repeating history.
We know the terrorist; a trained security guard traveled almost an hour and a half to a gay bar. There he shot over a hundred people killing over 50 at last count and wounding a similar number. The terrorist had been investigated by the FBI twice between 2013 and 2014. The terrorist was divorced with recent allegations by the former spouse of a history of violence against her.
After entering “Pulse” a LGBT dance club, the terrorist went about shooting his victims in the club. He then came out engaging one police officer before returning to the club to take 30 hostages. Almost three hours after the start of the incident nine SWAT officers entered the club shooting and killing the terrorist.
Let’s examine what we know, likely know and pose questions the authorities will hopefully answer and more importantly adjust our future approach to minimize the possibility and/or severity of future events.
The FBI questioned the terrorist twice in two years. The first investigation was due to incendiary remarks and an alleged relationship with terrorists. His second run in with the FBI was due to a relationship and meeting with an American who would later become a suicide bomber in the Syrian civil war. Further, the terrorist’s former spouse alleged physical violence as a reason for the divorce. Why weren’t domestic violence charges never levelled? Was the FBI aware of his penchant for violence? Were his employers made aware of the FBI’s interest?
Any lack of FBI coordination would bear a striking resemblance to the Hasan attack at Ft. Hood over five years ago where Hasan’s employer, the US Army, was never notified of the FBI’s investigation. Allegations were made then of political pressure that hampered the investigation. Army officers cited concerns about being seen as racist if they took action against Hasan for his support of suicide bombing. Could political correctness played a role in the Orlando attack also?
While rumblings of gun control start to emerge few will report “Pulse” is a gun free zone. Florida law restricts concealed carry license holders from carrying their firearms at establishments whose primary income comes from the sale of alcohol. The terrorist engaged the one lone police officer providing security at “Pulse” and was able to re-enter the club and take hostages. How was the terrorist able to circumvent the lone police officer to enter the club? Why did the lone police officer not enter and engage the assailant when he began to open fire? Why didn’t he pursue?
As police converged on “Pulse”, 39 people were murdered, another 70 wounded, some gravely as 20 died at the hospital. 30 people were taken hostage. When exactly were these casualties caused? Did the terrorist wound/kill 100 hundred people inside “Pulse” and then go outside to engage the officer? Doubtful, it takes an awful lot of shooting to inflict 100 casualties and there’s video of a large amount of gunfire around the club while surrounded by what seems to be a dozen police cars. It’s very likely the terrorist continued to kill innocents after engaging the lone police officer, the definition of an active shooter scenario. Where was the police response as additional police arrived and before SWAT showed up?
To avoid any misperception, I’m not accusing the police of cowardice. To an individual, they are a pretty courageous lot and in a group are capable of taking decisive action. That said something caused the police to hesitate. What and why? May it be time to re-evaluate the police response to a situation the Orlando Police chief characterized as a hostage situation when it sounded like an active shooter scenario? There can be little doubt that an almost three hour pause allowed gravely wounded victims to die.
What should be done to minimize the possibility and harm future terrorists can do to us? It all starts with changing our mindset. We must first acknowledge we are not conducting routine law enforcement operations in the US when it comes to these incidents. I’m not making the case for martial law or the excessive militarization of law enforcement. I am saying political pressure to not investigate where smoke exists is allowing fires to flame later. Wife beating individuals cannot carry or legally purchase a firearm. Making incendiary comments, alleging ties to terrorists, knowing future suicide bombers should preclude an individual from being an armed security guard.
The average beat cop must be equipped and trained to engage a terrorist immediately as an individual or as part of a small team instead of waiting for SWAT. Hostage situations at the site of a mass shooting can’t be treated as hostage situations solely. Already wounded victims are in danger of expiring. In reality, these incidents are actually active shooter incidents where the terrorist is letting blood loss vs. the initial round kill his victims. This is a prominent lesson from the Paris Bataclan theatre massacre where 89 people were killed by three terrorists armed with AK’s over a two and a half hour period, a ratio of one terrorist to 30 dead.
Terrorists cannot be allowed to use explosives to achieve standoff or buy time for them to continue to kill. Again, this is a prominent lesson from the Paris shootings and potentially from the San Bernadino attack where two victims died after arriving at the hospital. Using other entrances or creating them must be an initial course of action not a later one. It’s hard to tell police to assault into a potential minefield but that is what we sometimes ask of our soldiers when the situation requires it. This is an example of where a law enforcement approach to terror doesn’t work.
Gun free zones should be minimized. Floridian concealed carry license owners are six times less likely than a police officer to be convicted of a felony. Gun free zones should be the exception rather than the rule and those places where they are required should bear the responsibility for protecting the patrons they require to be unarmed.
Finally never publicize the name of a terrorist. It encourages copy cats, glorifies the shooter and provides propaganda value to the entities that encourage, recruit, inspire and sometimes train them.
There can be little doubt war is being waged on US soil. If you still need more evidence look at the helmet of the SWAT officer shot in the head by the terrorist. Law enforcement is challenged more than ever. Politicians characterizing terror attacks as anything but radical Islamic terror blunt law enforcement initiatives, attitudes and mindset. Those are critical components to responding appropriately to an incident. In the military, we have military police who are soldiers first and cops secondly. We need police that are law enforcement officials first but can transition to a soldier mindset during incidents like this. I can guarantee this won’t be the last incident of a terrorist waging war in America. 
Pic from Independent UK
