For a person with old-fashioned values, and an old-fashioned sense of English word meanings, the reports of the Fort Hood massacre were almost as provoking as what happened there. In the larger view of things, they may be more consequential….
Falsehood has more consequences than the revelation of personal insincerity. What happened at Fort Hood was no kind of “tragedy.” It was a criminal act, of the terrorist sort, performed by a man acting upon known Islamist motives. To present the perpetrator himself as a kind of “victim” — a man emotionally distressed by his impending assignment to Afghanistan or Iraq — is to misrepresent the reality.
This man was a professional psychiatrist, assigned to help soldiers cope with traumas. Is this the profile of a man with no control over his own emotions? It appears he had hired a lawyer to get him out of the military before his deployment overseas. Is this consistent with spontaneity?
He reportedly shouted “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire on American soldiers. Would that perhaps offer a little hint of the actual motive? He shot about 40 people, over 10 minutes, with two pistols, neither of them military issue. Might that perhaps suggest premeditation?
David Warren is a deeply thoughtful Canadian commenter whose [url=http://www.davidwarrenonline.com] columns can be found online[/url]. He’s a former Anglican who went over to Rome about five years ago, and his columns are well worth reading on a regular basis.
First I don’t see any contradiction between calling this a “tragedy” and a criminal act. Like 9/11, it can be both.
Second, Mr. Warren is assuming a lot of facts that have not yet been confirmed by investigators. It is not a matter of “political correctness”, it is a matter of letting the proper authorities conduct their investigation of motive and method before we go jumping to conclusions based on the reports from Fox News. Mr. Warren’s portrait of the suspect may end up being correct, but let’s allow the military and federal investigators to do their job.
Seems to me that Warren is trapped in his own political correctness. I live a mile from the mosque in Silver Spring which the shooter is quoted as attending, and they are not, as far as I can tell, raving with Islamist frenzy– they share parking lots with the Ukrainian Orthodox cathedral next door when one or the other runs out of space. Since, for a change, the guy survived, I expect we’ll actually find something out about his thinking, rather than having to rely on the speculations of blowhard columnists.
Sorry guys, I think Warren is spot on. As I read the news reports it was his fellows at Walter Reed who were quoted as saying they thought no action was taken by superiors because of fears of being not politically correct. Such fears are very prevalent in the armed forces.
In the second-guess-o-rama I’m sure we’re not going to hear the real reasons why this guy wasn’t dealt with. Speculations about political correctness may well be accurate, but there’s also retention to think about: his issues may well have been overlloked by higher-ups who were more concerned about having enough shrinks in the field. We have a bunch of different scripts available for rationalizing mass shootings, but in the absence of verification (and considering that in almost every case the gunmen haven’t survived to explain themselves) I don’t find them especially compelling. And in this case, with a little patience we most likely won’t need to speculate.
Clearly people around this guy thought there was a good chance he would become violent, yet they said nothing or were ignored. Either way, political correctness, not wanting to “offend” anyone with privileged status (and these days Muslims head that list), played a role in this murderous, Islamist inspired act. Dorothy Rabinowitz pretty much nails it:
“What a puzzle this piece of vacuity must be to audiences hearing it, some, no doubt, with outrage. To those not terrorized by fear of offending Muslim sensitivities, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s motive was instantly clear: It was an act of terrorism by a man with a record of expressing virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments. All were conspicuous signs of danger his Army superiors chose to ignore.â€
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525831785724114.html
Actually, the people around the guy were reported as saying that he was “fat, bald, and perceived as completely non-threatening.” And it’s clear that the U.S. Army didn’t want to release him not because they were being “politically correct” but because they desperately needed psychiatrists. Particularly ones whose medical education they had paid for.
Ms. Rabinowitz’s outrage is just speculation until the true motive of the suspect is known. It would be better if everyone just waited a few days for the investigation than try to put a puzzle together with fragmentary pieces of isolated facts, second hand information and speculation.
I’m willing to wait, Scott (#8), but there is still the undeniable fact of political correctness in how this story first broke in the media. There was a blatant, unconcealed attempt to gloss over the fact that a Muslim fanatic was the killer. But then again, I guess the PC nature of the MSM isn’t in doubt or the interesting part of this case. What is more important is whether this sad case illustrates an actual tendency toward political correctness within the Army.
After all, the military is one of the strongest bastions of traditional cultural values left in our society, so it would be telling, but not shocking, if furthern investigation does confirm that such insanity had seeped into the Army. Frankly, it would be astonishing if it hadn’t.
But Catholic Mom (#7) and others above are right; there are quite plausible reasons why the Army wouldn’t have rushed to purge the guy. Life is often messy and complicated…
David Handy+
I’m still not certain that Hasan the assassin acted alone. The reports during the first several hours stated that there were “confirmed” at least two shooters and that there might have been a third. The high volume of fire combined with the casualty rate, in addition to the “confirmed” reports of multiple shooters and the near instant News Media airbrushing of the story leaves me highly skeptical. I hope to find out more from my nephew since he actually lives across the street from where the shootings took place. As to motive, oh come on! The guy was shouting Allah Akbar while in the process of shooting. Does it get any more clear? I suppose that swastikas offer no clue as to the motivation of skinheads either?
(Also, I wonder how General Casey would have responded if Maj. Hasan had chosen to target his fellow officers in the chain of command rather than the enlisted folks? I wonder how President O would have responded if Maj. Hasan had targeted politicians? This all serves as a cautionary tale on multiple levels.)
Not by the New York Times, which is where I’ve been reading this story. The first day they were giving the only info they had — that this guy seemed to be really upset about being deployed oversees. By the second day they were suggesting that he may have posted notes on the internet justifying suicide bombing and in today’s paper there’s a full story of all possible (but not confimed) links he may have had to radical imams. I didn’t see any glossing over at all.
If anybody is glossing it’s the army. Multiple sources have stated that they desperately need muslims and Arab-speakers in the army to help serve as liasons in Iraq and Afghanistan and they are very concerned that this event is going to keep muslims from joining the Army — in part because they’ll fear a backlash. One military guy was quoted in the NY Times yesterday talking about an American muslim soldier that died saving the life of another solidier and saying “nobody ever heard of that guy and now all we’re going to hear about is this guy [Hasan] .” So the military is quite worried about it, but certainly not from the perspective of “political correctness.”
From NPR:
[blockquote]Two psychiatrists who worked with Hasan at Walter Reed told NPR that during the six years he was there, he was frequently distracted and often late for work. The psychiatrists, who asked not to be identified, said that when on call, Hasan often would simply not answer the phone.
They also said Hasan once tried to convert a patient to Islam, telling him that Islam would “save his soul.” Hasan received a verbal warning for that incident.
He was repeatedly warned about his performance, but officials said the problems had nothing to do with his faith.
At one point, the psychiatrists said, a former psychiatric director at Walter Reed, Scott Moran, sought to have Hasan dismissed, reportedly saying: “I do not think Hasan should carry the Walter Reed name.” Moran, reached by NPR, declined to comment.
But the administrative procedure for removing a resident at Walter Reed was considered onerous, according to the psychiatrists, and a key official on a review committee reportedly asked how it might look to terminate a key resident who happened to be a Muslim.
Hasan was later reassigned to Fort Hood.[/blockquote]
Sounds like political correctness to me! He was a bad doctor, but they wouldn’t get rid of him, they just shuffled him off somewhere else. Not an uncommon practice in the government – it IS terribly hard to fire someone in any government job (I know!). But the special consideration given to his religion was telling.
Catholic Mom – you said: “One military guy was quoted in the NY Times yesterday talking about an American muslim soldier that died saving the life of another solidier and saying “nobody ever heard of that guy and now all we’re going to hear about is this guy [Hasan] .†So the military is quite worried about it, but certainly not from the perspective of “political correctness.†”
The Times appears to have written to produce that effect – but that soldier was NOT Moslem, he was Arab – and a Catholic. Don’t equate Moslem with Arab and vice versa – and read the Times very, very carefully.
From here: “Andrea Elliott’s front page article in the November 9 New York Times played up the thousands of Muslims in the U.S. military and how their “service…is more necessary and more complicated than ever before,†but gave the false impression that a Medal of Honor recipient named near the end of her piece was a Muslim himself, when he was actually Catholic. . .
Near the end of the article, Elliott changed the subject ever so slightly that it might have gone unnoticed. The reporter quoted Captain Erich Rahman, an Iraq war veteran and Bronze Star winner: “Too many Americans overlook the heroic efforts of Arab-Americans in uniform, said Capt. Eric Rahman…He cited the example of Lieutenant Michael A. Monsoor, a Navy Seal who was awarded the Medal of Honor after pulling a team member to safety during firefight in 2006, in Ramadi, Iraq. Lieutenant Monsoor died saving another American, yet he will never be remembered like Major Hasan, said Captain Rahman. Regardless, he said, Muslim- and Arab-Americans are crucial to the military’s success in Afghanistan and Iraq.â€
Umm…there’s a politically correct conspiracy to credit the heroism of Catholics to Muslims? Or just bad journalism??
Crabby — your comments confirm that the only “politically correctness” was by the Army — not the media. But if “politically correct” means “doing what is politicall expeditious for us” then that would hardly be an amazing thing for an institution to do, would it?
Jeez folks,
He is a muslim and he committed an act of terror. Why is that so hard to put together?
Thank you Old Soldier. Your SITREP is succinct and factual. I detect technical and tactical proficiency. The EMI is flooding the airwaves, so it’s nice to have clarity.
Go to the Drudge Report – this guy had been under an FBI investigation for goodness sake!
Sick and Tired,
Why is it there is so much more concern for the perp, rather then the vics. I just can not understand.
Time actually has a decent article about this, “Did the Army Ignore Red Flags Because of Hasan’s Religion”:
Fell thru the cracks?
More likely we, like the Trogans, have failed and are continuing to fail to heed Cassandra’s warning. The enemy is inside the walls.
Wake up America!
I wish I knew why some people identify with the perpetrators rather than the victims. I suspect that the same world view is at the root of the disagreement about the death penalty. I do not understand that point of view that has seeminly unlimited compassion for the offenders but nearly none for the victims.
I cannot avoid the interesting (depressing??) comparison to Mr Obama’s reaction in the case of a white cop who busted a professor friend of his. There was not a moment’s hesitation. [Paraphrasing] ‘We have a long and clear history of white cops harassing people of color, and this is just the latest in that trend.’ No lack of clarity there.
Memo to Obama: we [i]also[/i] have a long and clear history of Muslims shooting up our military, or attempting to do — Arkansas, Jacksonville, Ft. Dix — as well as around our national capital. Are you simply an ignorant dolt? Or maliciously ‘ignorant’?
Oh, my, but we have to watch out for those people with the (official) Gadsden military flag … [i]they[/i] might be terrorists.
If we end up as well off as Carter II, we shall be remarkably fortunate. Some of us tried to warn y’alls.
The first, and still most convincing, explanation I saw for Hasan’s continuance in the Army was from conservative commentator Ed Morrissey at HotAir. Simple. When the Army has paid for the education, the officer has an obligation to serve a designated number of years. If the officer does not perform well, the Army will normally move him to a position where he can’t do so much harm, but they won’t terminate him because of his obligation to serve.
There are reports about that very alarming presentation at a seminar a couple of years ago, and it is hard to understand why no action was taken to more closely investigate Hasan following that.
It’s a tough situation. The Army, like the intelligence services, does indeed need Muslims and Arabic speakers to assist with its missions. There are Muslims who are serving creditably and reliably. The difficulty is how to tell the difference. There were red flags all around this guy — the seminar, the online contacts, the wild talk to fellow officers, the uneasiness around female colleagues. That last one alone is a marker. If you see a Muslim family in which the women wear the face veil, you know the family accepts a radical form of Islam. When I met my landlord’s family in Cairo, I hesitated to shake hands. Youssef put his hand out and said, “We are not fanatics.” The Army is going to have to scrutinize more carefully any Muslim soldiers showing signs of radicalism.
The bottom line in assessing Maj. Hasan’s motivation, to me, is that there are a variety of reasons behind mass murders of this type. They are not all Islamist fanatics, obviously. However, this one does seem to be, and it is foolish to pretend otherwise for political reasons. Facts are facts.
Katherine
The FBI and the military has turned down offers from Israli intell
to act as interpreters. They are without excuse.
The politically correct are risking the lives of innocent people to make themselves feel superior.
Yes, there was a reluctance to remove MAJ Hasan from the Army because the United States had invested vast sums of money in giving him a free medical education and a specialty in psychiatry. Not only would that money be wasted, but boarding this guy out would constitute an admission that he never should have been admitted to this coveted program in the first place.
But that’s not all. Anyone who tried to follow up the clues that Hasan was a pathological Muslim would have risked his career. The brass would not have gone after Hasan, they would have targeted the whistleblower as a bigot. You can see that this mindset has not changed, by the comments of Gen Casey and others after the incident.
But, the accused was under such stress. He had to endure the indignity of the infidel United States giving him a free medical education and paying him for residency at Walter Reed, and then allowing him to acquire a specialty in psychiatry. Some of his fellow soldiers allegedly taunted him for being Muslim. It is possible that someone even suggested that Hasan was at risk of committing violent jihad. Then, add to that the Pre Traumatic Stress Syndrome of possibly being ordered to duty overseas. Good Lord, anyone would have cracked under such circumstances!