the hasan failure

While there's no defending the actions of the Ft. Hood shooter, it's becoming clear that Maj. Nidal Hasan was openly conflicted about his role in the War on Terror.  Not just anti-American or pro-Islam, but genuinely torn between his mission and his beliefs.

It's difficult to believe that anyone who would shoot forty-plus unarmed people meets the definition of "conscientious objector," but then the whole problem with radical Islam is that followers don't believe infidels are people.

In the military, I remember something of an urban legend about Freemasons.  The problem was that Masons were supposedly so loyal to their brotherhood that they wouldn't fight other Masons in combat.  If you and a Mason squad-mate happened upon another Mason in combat, it was more likely that the Masons would gang up on you than fight each other.

Something along those lines happened with Nidal Hasan.  Fortunately, these are very isolated incidents.  And make no mistake about it -- the guy should fry.  "All enemies, foreign and domestic" includes Muslims, if that's what the enemy happens to believe in.  Hasan took the oath, and therefore he's on the hook.

But the most alarming thing, of course, is that after all the sentiments Hasan expressed -- for years -- and his apparent attempts to be declared a conscientious objector, that nobody recognized the sheer instability of this guy.

Hasan deserves his virgins, and we should expedite the meeting.  But as long as we insist on the political correctness nonsense that allowed him to remain in the military, then other heads should roll as well.  Well, maybe not literally, but you get the point.

Somebody, somewhere, could have done something about this guy.  And the fact that nobody did is -- at the very least -- a contributing factor here.

Comments

[Bill A.]

The psychology of radical anything is the same. Terrorists are lead by a charismatic leader who incites them into doing horrific acts based on his interpretation of religious texts. Usually that the main populace does not subscribe to. Does this sound familiar? It should. Some have been leaders of nations, i.e. Adolf Hitler. Here in lies the danger with radical Islam. Keeping in mind that in the 10th thru 14th centuries, it was radical Christianity that slaughtered millions of 'infidels' in the name of religion. The fact that we, as in the citizens of the world, have kept radical Islam at bay this long is amazing. If that genie ever escapes the bottle the rest of the world will be laid waste over the next century.

[UK Jimbo]

It clearly seems ridiculous that this guy was not stopped/apprehended before he began his killings given what we all now know about him. It seems to me that given the amount of visibility counter terrorism authorities had it must have been a deliberate decision not to step in. I suspect that the contacts he had and potential avenues for further intelligence were the cause of inaction. These cases seem always to be a balance between future intel and the likelihood of immediate action. Looks like the balance on this was misjudged.

[Dagny Taggart]

Nidal Hasan's actions only confirm that there is an enormous conflict of interest for Muslims currently serving in the American military.

While I certainly condemn Hasan's actions, I don't blame him for his lack of enthusiasm about being sent into a war against his religious and cultural brethren.

What is sad is that his actions are only furthering anti-Muslim stereotypes, much of the very reason he was so disillusioned with the armed forces in the first place.