A Tragic Shooting in D.C.
In a shocking incident just blocks from the White House, two West Virginia National Guardsmen were shot in the head by a man identified as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan immigrant who entered the United States following the Taliban’s return to power in 2021. Both soldiers are reported to be in critical condition, and the motive behind the attack remains unclear. Lakanwal was apprehended shortly after the shooting, with early images depicting him being wheeled into an ambulance almost naked, underscoring the chaotic nature of the event. As investigations unfold, the absence of a clear motive raises troubling questions about the mental state of the assailant and the implications of such violence in the heart of the nation’s capital.
The shooting has sparked a fierce debate about the deployment of National Guardsmen in Washington, D.C., which some critics, including The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, have labeled a “political show.” Mayer’s comments, suggesting that the presence of the Guardsmen may have contributed to the tragedy, drew a sharp rebuke from the White House, which branded her a “sick, disgusting ghoul.” This exchange highlights the fraught political atmosphere surrounding military presence in domestic settings, particularly in light of recent court rulings deeming such deployments illegal. While Mayer did not condone the attack, her remarks raised questions about the broader implications of using military forces to address urban crime and disorder, emphasizing that the decision to deploy troops should not be viewed in isolation from the consequences that may arise from such actions.
As the investigation continues, the lack of clear motives or statements from Lakanwal complicates the narrative. There have been no reports of him expressing political or ideological motivations during the attack, leading to speculation that he may be acting from a disordered mindset rather than coherent political beliefs. This raises critical questions about the nature of violence in contemporary society and the potential psychological factors at play. The incident serves as a stark reminder of the unpredictability of human behavior and the complexities surrounding acts of violence, particularly in politically charged environments. The unfolding story is not just about the immediate tragedy but also about the broader societal implications of such violence and the challenges in addressing the underlying issues that contribute to it.
This afternoon, blocks from the White House, a man sneaked up on two West Virginia National Guardsmen and shot them in the head with a handgun. Both soldiers are reportedly in critical condition. A motive has not been determined, but a recent Afghan immigrant named Rahmanullah Lakanwal is in custody, according to
CBS News
. Early photos of the suspect show a burly, bearded man being wheeled almost naked into an ambulance. Lakanwal entered the United States after the return of the Taliban in 2021, CBS reported.
The desire to speculate about motive is only human, but speculators beware:
Why shoot a stranger in the head?
is a trick question, and often reveals more about the thoughts of the one who answers it than of the one about whom it is asked. There is, of course,
no
reason to shoot a stranger. But some people, when they hear a gunshot, instinctively project their own view of the situation onto the mind of the apparent assailant.
After today’s shooting,
The New Yorker
’s Jane Mayer
called
the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guardsmen to the streets of Washington a “political show” and asked “at what cost” this deployment was taking place. The White House social-media team
called
Mayer a “sick, disgusting ghoul” (oh, for the days when “Jane, you ignorant slut” was a
joke
rather than a plausible script for actual government press releases), as if she had implied that killing soldiers was a reasonable response to the illegality or stupidity of deploying them. Mayer’s original post did not, of course, defend the attack, but it made the trivial claim that if the deployment hadn’t happened, the Guardsmen would not be dead now. The decision to deploy troops to the District of Columbia (to combat crime and disorder, Donald Trump said, though courts have recently declared such a deployment illegal) may be right or wrong, but its rectitude does not depend on whether a random guy tries to kill two of the soldiers with a handgun.
Of course, facts might emerge that establish a clear motive, one that would relieve reporters of the peril of speculation. But even the absence of facts may suggest hints about the nature of the motive for this apparently senseless crime. When the absence of these details becomes prolonged, certain inferences become more plausible. No published reports yet suggest that the alleged assailant said anything when he attacked—no leftist slogans, no jihadist chants, no mentions of a favorite or least favorite U.S. war. He must not be explaining himself all that comprehensibly in captivity either. If he were, authorities could have said something by now about his reasoning or perhaps have just said, as they sometimes do, that “the suspect is talking.” That line and its variations remain absent from reports.
What little we know about the man is that he thought the best way to advance his interests was to walk up to a couple of soldiers, about as close as he could get to the White House, and try to kill them. This modus operandi is, all by itself, an indication of an unwell mind, if only because there is nothing one could wish to accomplish in the world that would not be better accomplished by doing something else. Someone who chooses such disordered means should be expected to be acting in service of equally disordered ends. The most surprising outcome to this bloody afternoon would be if it turned out that the assailant had been reading
The New Yorker
and agreed with Jane Mayer about the Trump administration’s undermining of the rule of law.
More likely, this alleged assailant is yet another case of a man motivated more by spleen than by brain. Coherent politics are, as always, an elite preoccupation, and more surprising when present than when absent.
