Fort Hood: Hindsight Is Always Perfect
Nov 14th, 2009 | 35 responses
Americans such as myself step into troubled waters when we try to understand why an Army shrink would kill 13 and wound 33 on the pretext he didn’t want to be assigned to Afghanistan.
Therefore, I find it not at all unusual that today’s authors of Op-Ed columns in today’s Los Angeles Times argue amongst themselves. The issue is not whether Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan committed a terrorist act. He did.
The issue which is only partially addressed in the opinion pieces is why the army failed to connect the dots of his behavior that culminated in the massacre.
The questions are — was it because he was a Muslim? Was it because the army was protecting its investment in his education since it not only was short on Muslims it was short on mental health experts? Or was it because the army brass was intimidated and too politically correct?
That last question really bothers me. It forces a hypothetical question which really cannot be answered. That is, what if the major was a white Christian from our nation’s heartland whose religious views trampled his objectivity as a psychiatric specialist? Or worse, what if he was totally incompetent as judged by his peers? Either way, would he have been drummed out of the corps? We don’t know. He should have been discharged without prejudice so he could rise or fail by market forces in private practice with an unblemished service record.
The problem with my analysis and the army’s is that hindsight is seen from a prism that is 20-20.
The Times commentaries are worth reading. One was offered by Tim Rutten, the paper’s resident conservative. The other by Judith Miller, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a Fox News contributor, and David Samuels, a contributing editor of Harper’s Magazine.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
35 Responses to “Fort Hood: Hindsight Is Always Perfect”
Dr Hasan was also using the military and probably became enraged that the military would not let him maintain the fraud. While at Walter Reed, Dr Hasan was allegedly a poor perform while on call and had bad work habitsl. Dr Hasan probably believed that the Army was an easy mark that could taken for ever thing that he could get. His militant islam seemed to develop right along with his professional failures.
People should remember that a muslim will never consider you their equal and that stealing from you is acceptable.
Well, if those are your questions, then you are questioning whether or not he committed a terrorist act.
Terrorism:
Exactly who was Maj. Hasan trying to intimidate or coerce?
He committed a hateful and violent act that he justified through his twisted sense of politics and religion. From what I've heard, he sounds like a fairly typical spree-killer. He just happened to be Muslim and shout “Allah Akbar!” But I don't think he held any ideas that he'd stop the US Army, and probably not even that he'd convince fellow Muslim soldiers not to deploy. At any rate, I haven't seen any message he left that would indicate that.
I knew you'd come and engage on this post.
“He just happened to be Muslim and shout “Allah Akbar!” But I don't think he held any ideas that he'd stop the US Army, and probably not even that he'd convince fellow Muslim soldiers not to deploy.”
Tell me something: Do you consider a suicide bomber to be a terrorist? And do you suppose a suicide bomber thinks he's going to stop the war?
Which suicide bomber are you talking about?
Any suicide bomber — preferably (for comparative purposes in this case) a Muslim who shouts Allahuakbar as he detonates.
Doesn't matter where. At a checkpoint? In a market?
Would that be a terrorist?
Of course it matters where. It isn't the method of attack that marks it as a terrorist action.
Think about what you're saying – anyone who dies in the process of deploying a bomb is a terrorist. So how does that work in Maj. Hasan's case? Anyone who grabs a handgun and shoots US Army soldiers is a terrorist? By that logic, everyone who has ever fought the US Army is/was a terrorist.
So, if a Palestinian youth straps on a bomb and detonates it in a market, then it's an act of terrorism. And I would guess that they actually do intend to influence the political decisions of their fellow Palestinians and even the Israelis. But it isn't the intention of dying and becoming a martyr in the act that makes it an act of terror. It is the political function and intention.
If a member of an army, during a war, detonates a bomb and, in the process of doing so, kills himself (or herself); then it is less clearly an act of terrorism. So, if a member of the Taliban – which is actually a governmental power that is still at war with us – detonates a bomb at a checkpoint, and kills himself in the process, I would argue it is simply an act of war, and not an act of terrorism.
“Think about what you're saying – anyone who dies in the process of deploying a bomb is a terrorist.”
ThurmanHart, you've conveniently left out all the other relevant bits in this. His was an intentional act, undertaken simultaneously with the proclamation of the greatness of his God. Accidental detonations? Irrelevant — as I'm sure you realized. Unless you're next going to argue that Hasan accidentally fired over 100 rounds from his weapon.
“So, if a member of the Taliban – which is actually a governmental power that is still at war with us – detonates a bomb at a checkpoint, and kills himself in the process, I would argue it is simply an act of war, and not an act of terrorism.
Since we're talking about an American citizen, enacting this atrocity upon his own country's military from within the ranks, I don't see how classification as “an act of war” carries much weight.
His actions are consistent with jihad, ThurmanHart. The only reason this is problematic is because he was a major in the military he attacked.
Generally, jihadist acts are referred to as terrorism. Is there some other term you'd prefer?
Think about what you're saying – anyone who dies in the process of deploying a bomb is a terrorist
You've got to be kidding. Polimom said a suicide bomber. Do you really think anyone would take that to mean accidental death while deploying a bomb?
I don't understand why it's important that it be deemed “a terrorist act.” I think ThurmanHart is correct. Not every mass murderer is a “terrorist”. They're still heinous criminals. I didn't read anything in Thurman's comment that sought to minimize the crime in any way. But we seem to have become ahem, thin skinned about our definitions. I caught all kinds of flak for pointing out that 9-11 was a massively successful case of arson. We don't need to revisit that argument, but for some reason, even though that act was committed by a criminal conspiracy, not a sovereign nation, it seems critically important to a lot of people that it be considered “an act of war”. And I guess it's critically important here that Hasan be called a terrorist rather than a premeditated mass murderer, as if the latter is somehow not as serious. Could it be that mass murder, or any murder committed by a Muslim is now defined as “terrorism?”
Now to the point of the post, there is a disconnect here that I still don't understand. There is no legitimate “PC” position that says “he's a Muslim so let's deny his request to quit.” I suppose it IS possible, and JD made a similar point, that the Army thought he was just trying to get his free education and then duck out on his commitment to serve. That would be the exact opposite of the point seemingly being made about “lefties”, ACLU, political correctness or any other attempt to suggest that he was being given special consideration because of his being a Muslim. If he were being given any special consideration, his request would have been GRANTED, not DENIED. So,
“Or was it because the army brass was intimidated and too politically correct? That last question really bothers me. It forces a hypothetical question which really cannot be answered.”
I disagree of course. It is self answering. The brass could not possibly have thought that the “politically correct” response was to deny the request. Unless now “politically correct” means acquiescing to non-Muslim desires to see Muslims' desires denied. Is that what you're saying? It's PC to NOT do things Muslims want? The ACLU wants Muslims to have their wishes denied?
“Either way, would he have been drummed out of the corps? We don’t know.”
HUH? “Drummed out of the corps?” He WANTED OUT. He repeatedly TRIED to quit.
Actually, this is a bit of a carry-over. ThurmanHart had rather a strenuous objection to the original reporting of this story (the title) on TMV. I frankly don't care — but I do get frustrated with what appears to be a real need to gloss over the reality of this man's actions.
“Could it be that mass murder, or any murder committed by a Muslim is now defined as “terrorism?”"
That's an absurdity, at least in this forum. I don't think I've seen anybody suggesting anything even remotely like that. However, it's an enormous disservice to the people who died, and the context in which the crime was committed, to equate his actions with the ordinary, every day, run of the mill shooting spree (and embarrassing combination of adjectives).
“He WANTED OUT. He repeatedly TRIED to quit.”
I agree that he wanted out. However, I've not seen any reporting that he actually followed through with any official requests to get out of his contracted commitment. All I've seen is that he sough advice from an army attorney. Nothing more.
Do you have a link about his repeated attempts?
Nice strawman. I never argued that Maj. Hasan did anything accidentally.
As far as his “proclamation of the greatness of his God” goes…do you have any idea how many people pray before they die? Would you expect him to pray to another God? For a Muslim to say “Allahu Akbar!” is basically like a Southern Baptist saying “Praise God!” or “God help me!” or any other of the literally hundreds of catch-phrase prayers that particular branch of Christianity made popular (“Not my will by thine!”)
Wonderful, yet another straw-man. I think it's pretty clear that I wasn't offering a description of an American citizen acting against his own military. What I said was that it's an example of how a suicide bombing is not an act of terrorism. Care to actually deal with the argument as it's made?
His actions are also consistent with a typical spree-shooter who has decompensated. The only reason this is problematic is that he happens to be a Muslim.
Well, I would never use the term “jihadist acts.” Jihad literally means “struggle.” In Christian terms, it would refer to the duty of the faithful to fight against their sinful nature. So, to be quite honest, the vast majority of “jihadist acts” are not even close to being terrorism. They are simply the acts of decent people trying to be faithful. A Muslim would generally tell you that both Martin Luther King and Gandhi were engaged in jihad.
Obviously, the most common usage of the term refers to the use of violence for political reasons – which is actually what terrorism is. It is the same thing as when right-wing Christians justify the killing of an abortionist. It has religious overtones, but it is a perversion of the intent of the religion, and the language of that religion.
I think it probably seems to you that I am splitting hairs to an infinite level and am simply trying to absolve Maj. Hasan of his actions. I may be doing the first, but with good reason. I am certainly not doing the latter.
The definitions and language we use are important, in part, because of the legal questions that will be faced. Hasan is not being charged with terrorism, from what I've read. He is being charged with murder. This is because his actions simply do not meet the legal definition of terrorism (what is missing is the intent to impact policy). But not all hateful actions are aimed at creating terror. Some just aim at being hateful. Thus, he did not commit an act of terrorism, but he did commit murder. Honestly, this should be enough – it is certainly enough to put him on trial, convict him, and sentence him to death (assuming, of course, that the evidence holds up – and I don't see any way it can't).
For further thought, read up on Howard Unruh, Charles Whitman, and Mark Lepine. Hasan differs only in that he said “Allahu Akbar” – wonder if Unruh, Whitman, or Lepine offered any prayers before they acted (Whitman, at least, seems to have been very religious).
No, I am arguing that the method of death is not the defining component. It is the intention behind it. If it matters whether the bomber plans to live or not, then surely it matters if the intent of the bombing is meant to impact the political situation or not.
Who is trying “to gloss over the reality of this man's actions?” In every instance, I've referred back to what is actually known, rather than what is suspected or implicated. Surely you aren't claiming that insisting on evidence is somehow “glossing over” a crime?
What's the evidence of it being terrorism, then? That he prayed before he began firing?
I do have a problem with the continued insistence that this is a case of terrorism, when it clearly doesn't fit the legal definition. All it does is fan the fires of hatred.
I don't think there is any legal way to get out of his contracted commitment. So there wouldn't be any evidence of that. Once an officer has completed his obligated service, he can request to be decommissioned at any time. Other than that, he would have to claim some reason for wanting out (conscientious objector, for instance) – and, generally speaking, the military does not want to grant such requests.
Let me tell you, you can't just get out of the military because you want out. It isn't that easy, for what should be obvious reasons.
I don't know how he would have “tried” to get out. The one thing that comes to mind is that he could claim to be a conscientious objector – but that means you'd never kill anyone, and, obviously, if he was honest, he couldn't claim that. He could claim to be gay, but that's a different horse to ride.
My understanding is that his superior at Walter Reed wanted to throw him out, but the committee that sits on such things refused to act because: 1) Under the best of conditions, it is difficult to get a doctor thrown out of a hospital; and 2) They were afraid of numerous lawsuits based on religious discrimination. So I don't think it was political correctness, but simple fear of legal action. I've seen that quite a bit with various “protected groups” in private business.
In response to how the service would handle a Christian that did the same stuff? My experience says they'd do the same thing. They'd boot him down to the next assignment and hope for the best.
I have a question: Is everybody who “goes postal” a terrorist?
That's what seems to me to have happened here.
So now poor put-upon Hasan simply “went postal”? Life just overwhelmed him, and so he decided to deliberately target, and shoot — multiple times each — soldiers about to deploy to Afghanistan and/or Iraq?
Oh for goodness' sake, I give up. There's really nothing more to be said. Between the “infinite splitting of hairs” and strawmen flying around in here like an exploding scarecrow, this is about as fruitless a discussion as the last one.
[...] A so-called moderate: The issue is not whether Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan committed a terrorist act. He did. [...]
I don't think there is any legal way to get out of his contracted commitment.
Yes, there are ways to get out, though it would have required extreme effort — effort which, to my knowledge, was not exerted. And if those efforts were made (I really don't know if they were, but I guarantee you there'll be a record of it if so), then it may be we simply haven't heard of it yet. All of which is why I asked for a link to support the adament statement that he'd “repeatedly TRIED to quit.”
Let me tell you, you can't just get out of the military because you want out.
Again… you're wrong — though you are right that it isn't “that easy”.
What is simple about “going postal?”
Did life just overwhelm Eric Harris so that he decided to deliberately target, and shoot –multiple times each — his classmates at Columbine?
It's fruitless because you have an opinion you want to pass along as fact, and when challenged, you continue to insist that it's fact. It's a problem that is near-epidemic on this site, apparently. But the problem is that someone like me, who actually served in the military and has a history of challenging false claims about our military, is trying to “gloss over” your opinion, which cannot be substantiated? Yeah, I can see why you'd be frustrated.
Sorry, I didn't realize you were an expert on military law and contractual obligations.
I know during my time that I saw several people actually try to get out. Two of them actually cut off their fingers. At least one broke his own leg. A couple claimed to be gay. One insisted that he heard voices in his head.
As far as I know, there is no way to tell them military, “Hey, I want out, because, you know, I don't want to do this.” Or, rather, you can say it, but no one really cares.
ThurmanHart, you have a marvelous ability for the absurd.
No, one cannot walk up to one's CO one day and say, “Yo. Dude. I wanna go home now, man. Cool with you?”
In Hasan's case, though, I would expect effort to go along the lines of, “Sir. Due to circumstances which transpired after undertaking my contract, my religion is now in direct conflict with my mission. I must therefore submit my request for conscientious objector status.”
There are, in fact, many avenues short of self-mutilation. I've just outlined the most obvious.
“But the problem is that someone like me, who actually served in the military and has a history of challenging false claims about our military…”
What on earth makes you think you're the only one who “actually served in the military”? Very silly assumption to have made, that one.
And on that note, I can see that this fruitless dialogue has reached a nadir. Good night all.
The reports that he had been trying to get out come from his family; his cousin and his aunt. Official sources are making contradictory statements, so I guess we don't know yet how he was trying to get out, except he had talked to Army lawyers and apparently hired his own to try to get him out.
I still don't see how this can be construed as some kind of “PC” decision not to take action on the reported concerns, from 2001 to present. Warning signs for 8 years and no action was taken, except he was encouraged to take classes about Islam and politics.
As to my intentionally provocative comment that terrorism is when a Muslim kills someone, can you point me to any cases in which Christian murderers have been called “terrorists?” In fact, anyone other than a Muslim, since 2001? I think Thurman hits the nail on the head that terrorism is not an act, such as blowing oneself up, but an attempt to terrorize, which 9-11 definitely was, and did. I don't know Hasan's motivation. No one does. I just think it's unconscionable that some are trying to pin this on Obama or liberal “political correctness” when 90% of the warning signs were before this year. And I reject the idea that there was any aspect of Muslim-loving political correctness in “allowing” him to stay in the Army. That's my point. No one has suggested how anyone at any time extended favors or privileges to Hasan because he is Muslim.
Conscientious objector status does not get one removed from military duty. It only removes one from direct combat status. Hasan was not in a combatant status.
Where did I say I was the only one who served? Very silly assumption to have made, that one.
Anytime you want to discuss facts, I'm fine with that. As long as you post your opinion as fact, consider them challenged.
Okay, so how are you applying this to the Fort Hood killings? Clearly, Hasan planned to live.
If the killer had been a Christian, though, it probably would not have been called terrorism. It's pretty clear that it's his being Muslim that put that label on the massacre.
Only if they're Muslim, at the present time.
However, it's an enormous disservice to the people who died, and the context in which the crime was committed, to equate his actions with the ordinary, every day, run of the mill shooting spree (and embarrassing combination of adjectives).
Why? Adjectives aside.
The actions of MAJ Hasan demonstrate that he was not trying to get out. Going to a fellowship program would have extended his payback obligation. His accepting promotion also would have extended his obligation. It seems as long as MAJ Hasan was at Walter Reed and living a life close to being a civilian, he was content to be in the military (that is rip off the government). The transfer to Fort Hood where the military supervisors of MAJ Hasan were probably not going to tolerate his poor performance is what pushed him over the edge.
I still suspect that MAJ Hasan originally used militant islam was part of his scamming of the military but actually began to believe it. MAJ Hasan's parents were not very religious (they owned two bars) and MAJ Hasan was not very religious early in his life. However, MAJ Hasan's family is definitely a family of scammers. Virtually everything said by his relatives has been shown to be a lie, exaggeration, or just very incorrect.
Because of who those victims were and where they were when he killed them. They weren't random targets, or incidental victims. Because he saw them as acceptable — nay, proper — targets, because they were serving our country in a war he (and his ilk) have interpreted personally.
Clearly, I've had trouble expressing myself in this thread (and in others). Not sure why that is, but I took a more direct approach to the entire issue in a separate post this morning, here.
I don't think he planned to live. He had time to run. He didn't. He kept shooting until he could no longer do it.
Yes, I am saying that he didn't really intend to impact any political reality with these killings, thus it doesn't fit the legally encoded definition of terror in US law. He is just a killer, no more and no less.