The Fort Hood Report: Why Not Mention Islam?

[Buckaroo]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1954960,00.html?cnn=yes&hpt=C2


The U.S. military's just-released report into the Fort Hood shootings spends 86 pages detailing various slipups by Army officers but not once mentions Major Nidal Hasan by name or even discusses whether the killings may have had anything to do with the suspect's view of his Muslim faith. And as Congress opens two days of hearings on Wednesday into the Pentagon probe of the Nov. 5 attack that left 13 dead, lawmakers want explanations for that omission.

John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 commission and Navy Secretary during the Reagan Administration, says a reluctance to cause offense by citing Hasan's view of his Muslim faith and the U.S. military's activities in Muslim countries as a possible trigger for his alleged rampage reflects a problem that has gotten worse in the 40 years that Lehman has spent in and around the U.S. military. The Pentagon report's silence on Islamic extremism "shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become," he told TIME on Tuesday. "It's definitely getting worse, and is now so ingrained that people no longer smirk when it happens."

The apparent lack of curiosity into what allegedly drove Hasan to kill isn't in keeping with the military's ethos; it's a remarkable omission for the U.S. armed forces, whose young officers are often ordered to read Sun Tzu's The Art of War with its command to know your enemy. In midcareer, they study the contrast between capabilities and intentions, which is why they aren't afraid of a British nuclear weapon but do fear the prospect of Iran getting one.

Yet the leaders of the two-month Pentagon review, former Army Secretary Togo West and the Navy's onetime top admiral, Vernon Clark, told reporters last week that they didn't drill down into Hasan's motives. "Our concern is with actions and effects, not necessarily with motivations," West said. Added Clark: "We certainly do not cite a particular group." Part of their reticence, they said, was to avoid running afoul of the criminal probe of Hasan that is now under way. Both are declining interview requests before their congressional testimony, a Pentagon spokesman said. (Read TIME's cover story on the Fort Hood massacre.)

But without a motive, there would have been no murder. Hasan wore his radical Islamic faith and its jihadist tendencies in the same way he wore his Army uniform. He allegedly proselytized within the ranks, spoke out against the wars his Army was waging in Muslim countries and shouted "Allahu akbar" (God is great) as he gunned down his fellow soldiers. Those who served alongside Hasan find the Pentagon review wanting. "The report demonstrates that we are unwilling to identify and confront the real enemy of political Islam," says a former military colleague of Hasan, speaking privately because he was ordered not to talk about the case. "Political correctness has brainwashed us to the point that we no longer understand our heritage and cannot admit who, or what, the enemy stands for."

The Department of Defense Independent Review Related to Fort Hood, ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is limited in scope. Despite the title of its report — Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood — there is only a single page dedicated to the chapter called "Oversight of the Alleged Perpetrator." Much more space is given to military personnel policies (11 pages), force protection (six pages) and the emergency response to the shootings (12 pages).

Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said he was "disappointed" because the inquiry "does not adequately recognize the specific threat posed by violent Islamist extremism to our military," and added that the homeland-security panel he chairs will investigate. The Congressman whose district includes Fort Hood agrees. "The report ignores the elephant in the room — radical Islamic terrorism is the enemy," says Republican Representative John Carter. "We should be able to speak honestly about good and bad without feeling like you've done something offensive to society."

The report lumps in radical Islam with other fundamentalist religious beliefs, saying that "religious fundamentalism alone is not a risk factor" and that "religious-based violence is not confined to members of fundamentalist groups." But to some, that sounds as if the lessons of 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, where jihadist extremism has driven deadly violence against Americans, are being not merely overlooked but studiously ignored.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1954960,00.html?cnn=yes&hpt=C2#ixzz0dB1zA5vT

[ForTehNguyen]

prime example of being PC gets you killed

[stipilot]

Because PC didn't kill enough people the first time.

[glocktogo]

The authors of this report are well aware of the political repercussions if they diverge from the party line. They did exactly what was expected of them, as will most other career military personnel. We do not routinely place warriors in senior command positions. They're far too un-PC for such lofty postings.

The lesson learned in the current conflict is this: If you want to defeat the U.S. or draw it to a stalemate (which is in effect a win for any weaker foe), simply frame your conflict in religious trappings. The U.S. is utterly incapable of recognizing a religious conflict for what it is, at least officially.

the U.S. will never be rid of radical Islamic jihad so long as we support Israel or have interests in Muslim countries. But Islam is not just a religion, it's a political system and a way of life. The U.S. needs to figure out how to expose the system for what it is and avoid the whole crusade debate. We will never win that fight.

[ZDL]

*******

[d90king]

The authors of this report are well aware of the political repercussions if they diverge from the party line. They did exactly what was expected of them, as will most other career military personnel. We do not routinely place warriors in senior command positions. They're far too un-PC for such lofty postings.

The lesson learned in the current conflict is this: If you want to defeat the U.S. or draw it to a stalemate (which is in effect a win for any weaker foe), simply frame your conflict in religious trappings. The U.S. is utterly incapable of recognizing a religious conflict for what it is, at least officially.

the U.S. will never be rid of radical Islamic jihad so long as we support Israel or have interests in Muslim countries. But Islam is not just a religion, it's a political system and a way of life. The U.S. needs to figure out how to expose the system for what it is and avoid the whole crusade debate. We will never win that fight.

So you are saying they will like us if we don't help Israel and stay out of the Middle East?

I think that would have little impact on the crazy loons you are referring to... You act as though they are just civilized gentleman, that respond to simple reasoning....

They want and expect the world to share their views and bow down and worship their way and if not they deserve to die. Why do you think they have been at war with themselves for a million years...?

[glocktogo]

Are you saying we should end ties with Israel?

Never. :)

Would you advocate giving all your belongings to robbers and burglars just because they might not hurt you if you do? The same applies here. What I meant was that we're never going to please them, so why try?

However I would advocate that we stop giving them easy reasons to paint us as the bogeyman. The U.S. has always had a tendency to advocate for our nationalism and project our power abroad in a seemingly careless manner. We have backed dictators and tyrants when it suits us. We partner with corrupt regimes. We strong arm occasionally for private companies with huge interests abroad. We flaunt our wealth to those without and we often treat other foreign leaders as second class.


I do not say we should stop these practices because it weakens our enemies positions. I say it because there is strength in a morally superior position. We should do it because it's the right way to act, not because of what others may think of the U.S.

[Erk1015]

My favorite part is where the politician complains about the authors being too PC. Well who do you think started this line of thinking shithead? We as a nation have learned nothing from the last 9 years.

You know what the terrorists do? They come here and study our culture, our weaknesses and how things work in America, they apply for jobs and work and live in our cities for years banking on the fact that we are so afraid of offending anyone that the only way they will be caught is through bad luck.

You know what we do? We give them a few million dollars, yell at Israel every now and again and hope that by being nice to them, stamping every visa applicaiton we can find and ignoring the problem it will go away.

If you want to see how different our societies are then read a book called "Understanding Arabs", it helps you understand their way of thinking and how much of an impact the muslim faith and arab tradition have on their way of life.

The only hope we have is to try and learn about our enemy and to pull our heads out of our asses and speak the truth even if folks don't like it. Rant off

[Kalash]

Why not mention Islam? NO BALLS

[Volucris]

Religion is a cause of violence. Plain and simple. It's a motive for doing things. How they could just completely ignore religion's involvement is ignoring the scientific methodology of justice itself which is only explainable by a lack of testicles in our government these days.