This was an attack by an enemy combatant against our troops. It was an act of war. It was combat. Just because our troops are disarmed on base does not mean it wasn't war. Calling it workplace violence is strictly a political and financial decision by the federal government.
I disagree almost completely.
First, we are not at war. There has been no declaration of war by the Congress, and that is the ONLY legitimate way for this country to be "at war."
Major Nidal's was not and is not an "enemy combatant." He was a member of the United States Army, and he was wearing the uniform of the United States Army when he carried out his attack. He was and is a traitor, but he was not and is not an "enemy combatant."
There was no combat involved. The location was not a battlefield. The other American soldiers were not armed and could not fight back. His attack was not an act of war. It was an act of terrorism. Why can't we call it what it is?