Failing the troops at Fort Hood
Ubiquitous
Post's Eugene Robinson writes in a largely sensible column on the Fort Hood
massacre that appeared in yesterday's Washington Post:
Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, said Sunday that
he was concerned "this increased speculation" about Hasan's
evolving political and religious views "could cause a backlash
against some of our Muslim soldiers." Casey is right to worry
about the lunatics and bigots who now will think of all Muslims
in the military as potential enemies. But it only feeds such
paranoia to ignore alarm bells that an unstable individual, Muslim
or not, is about to blow.
But Robinson's closing recommendation is perhaps a bit problematic:
Had authorities learned in advance of any link between Hasan
and radical Islam--as opposed to the mainstream Islam practiced
by more than a billion people worldwide--they could have moved
immediately to ensure that Hasan could not hurt others or himself.
That wouldn't have been an act of bigotry, it would have been
an act of prudence, even compassion.
How is the Pentagon supposed to tell the difference between
reasonable caution and blatant discrimination? There are
thousands of Muslims in uniform, serving their country at
home and abroad. Ask them.
As a Post news story, also yesterday, reported, one Muslim volunteered his
thoughts on the matter. He "warned a roomful of senior Army physicians a year
and a half ago that to avoid 'adverse events,' the military should allow
Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting
in wars against other Muslims." That man, of course, was Nidal Hasan, and the
Post managed to get hold of his PowerPoint slides, which are now online. The
news story describes some of them:
Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote: "If Muslim groups
can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against
injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims
can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]
The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death
more then [sic] you love life!"
Under the "Conclusions" page, Hasan wrote that "Fighting to
establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is
condoned by the Islam," and that "Muslim Soldiers should not
serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing
believers unjustly--will vary!"
The final page, labeled "Recommendation," contained only one
suggestion:
"Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the
option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase
troop morale and decrease adverse events."
Muslim soldiers object to kiilling other Muslims? If only someone had thought
of that in 1980, the Iran-Iraq war could have been avoided.
What's striking about this, aside from the unsubtle way in which Hasan was
bucking for a discharge, is that his view of Islam seems very much in line
with that of the most hard-core critics of Islam. Of the latter it may be said
that they have an accurate sense of at least one strain of Islam. Robinson has
a point: It could be useful to hear from Muslims in the military who do not
share Hasan's views of what their faith requires.
--
Islam is a peaceful religion, just as long as the women are beaten, the boys
buggered and the infidels are killed.