Skip to comments.
The American Humiliation Buried at Fort Hood
J. Neil Schulman @ Rational Review ^
| November 13, 2009
| J. Neil Schulman
Posted on 11/13/2009 1:50:58 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
The American Humiliation Buried at Fort Hood
It’s now been seven full days following Thursday November 5, 2009, when U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, using only unremarkable handguns, murdered 13 fellow American soldiers and civilians, and wounding 30-odd others, including combat veterans. Hasan — an American-born-and-bred Muslim who initiated his attack by jumping on a table and in Arabic shouting the Muslim affirmation “God is Great!” — continued to shoot unarmed soldiers and civilians unopposed by any armed military personnel, and was finally stopped only when — after ten-minutes — two civilian police officers with no previous combat experience arrived on the scene to return his fire.
These days have allowed the commanding officers at Fort Hood — America’s largest army base with a population the size of a small city, and their superiors at the Pentagon and the Department of Defense — to make official statements and answer reporters’ questions.
These seven days allowed the current President and Vice President of the United States, Barack Obama and Joe Biden — and the White House press secretary and communications office — plus former living U.S. presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, the most recent U.S. presidential and vice presidential candidates, John McCain and Sarah Palin, past and present United States Senators and Members of Congress too numerous to mention, and all other official voices who have debated and shaped our national life, all to go on the record with both their immediate gut-reactions and, later, more considered reactions.
These seven days have been filled with coverage on the twenty-four-hour-news-cycle cable news networks, on network and syndicated talk radio, on newspaper editorial and Op-Ed pages, and in web-based forums such as this one.
These seven days included both Veterans Day — a day for honoring those who have defended the United States wearing its military uniforms — and a memorial service, attended by the President and First Lady of the United States, held for the fallen at Fort Hood.
These seven days have resulted in thirteen counts of murder, to be tried in a military court martial, against Major Hasan, with debate over whether his murder of a pregnant woman might result in a 14th murder count. There has been no charge of treason.
So I have been watching, listening, and reading my prominent countrymen for a week, now, waiting for a reaction I have never found.
I have found sorrow for the dead and wounded victims.
I have found praise for the military at Fort Hood as caregivers and rescuers.
I have found bewilderment, apologetics, and even pity for the minority attacker, on the one hand, and frustration at his not being regarded by the political establishment as part of a more widespread ideologically-driven enemy on the other.
I have heard angry questioning of why neither the FBI nor Army intelligence — both of which were aware of Hasan’s conflicted loyalties for over a year before his attack — left him in a position of military authority, and unwatched.
I have even seen echoes of my discovery of a Clinton-era Army regulation which I disclosed in the article I published here this past Monday — and which the magnificent John R. Lott, Jr., put on his own web page — reverberate to the editorial page of the Washington Times — without, of course, any credit to my copyrighted article, because doing so would have foiled the Washington Times‘ editorial redaction of that part of my article where I pointed out that the Bush administration had left this Clinton administration policy untouched for its eight years.
After the unannounced December 7, 1941 Imperial Japanese attack on American naval and army bases at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, which resulted in 2,402 killed and 1,282 wounded, the American commanding officers of the bases at Pearl Harbor, Admiral Husband Kimmel and Army Lieutenant General Walter Short, quickly saw their long and distinguished military careers ended. They spent the rest of their lives defending their reputations to a generation of angry Americans who held them accountable for their unpreparedness to defend their bases against attack. To the World War II generation, Pearl Harbor wasn’t just a military defeat, it was a humiliating defeat.
The Japanese knew what they were doing. Little, despised Japan — the Yellow Peril on American radio shows, in dime novels, in Hollywood movies, and in comic books — had taken their revenge by making the mighty United States of America lose face.
What I have been looking for this week and have not found — except in private telephone conversations with my friend, fellow libertarian author Brad Linaweaver and several of our friends — is a seething anger that a lone man armed only with a couple of smuggled-in handguns was able to engage in an unopposed ten-minute attack of murder and mayhem on the largest Army base of the United States of America, and even combat veterans were unarmed and unable to fight back because their superiors had deemed that regular carrying of handguns was too dangerous to be trusted to officers and enlisted personnel of the United States Army.
That the snake-oil security of gun control has become so dominant that our own army can’t ordinarily be trusted with a gun — that soldiers on an American army base need to dial 911 to call civilian cops for rescue from a lone gunman on an unabated rampage — is the single-most humiliating, despicable, evil, dishonorable, and disheartening loss of face in the entire history of the United States military … and nobody but Brad and myself seem to have felt it.
That’s far, far worse than the insanity of continuing a broken policy … that none of the people who speak from the American heart even notice that it’s broken.
Bill Clinton apparently doesn’t feel the shame that imposing gun control on the Army got them killed. If George W. Bush feels awful about leaving that policy in place after 9/11 so that our soldiers were sitting ducks for an attack by a lone gunman on American soil we have not heard his apology. I heard no indication of humiliation about making American soldiers scamper away for the lives in the voice of President Barack Obama. I have no sense from those who have beaten the drums of the War on Terror since September 11, 2001, that they feel ashamed.
Here was Sarah Palin’s only public reaction, posted to Facebook at 4:05 PM on the day of the attack: “Todd and I would like to offer our condolences to the families of the victims of the tragic shooting today at Fort Hood. Our thoughts and prayers will be with them.”
Where was the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments we would have been led to expect from the rugged Alaskan moose-hunter many Republicans still hope will become a future Commander-in-Chief of the United States Army?
Where were tough guys Dick Cheney or Rudy Giuliani’s lamentations about how far we have fallen that a single pistol-toting turncoat can run rampant on a U.S. army base?
Where is anyone calling for a charge of treason against the son-of-a-bitch army officer with the gun … and court martials and Congressional investigations for Defense Department and Pentagon post-9/11 dereliction of duty that let this happen?
Why is it that it takes two American science-fiction writers — J. Neil Schulman, whose only quasi-military experience was as a teenager wearing a U.S. Air Force uniform in the Massachusetts Civil Air Patrol, and Brad Linaweaver who did a year of Air Force ROTC — neither of us military veterans — to feel this disgrace?
Is there a science-fictional explanation behind this emotional non-reaction? Has my country been taken over by Jack Finney’s pod people or Heinlein’s puppet masters or the Invaders from Mars and we just haven’t noticed? Are reptilian invaders from V running things, or has the United States turned into Stepford? Have our leaders and pundits had their memories wiped like everyone except Julianne Moore in 2004’s The Forgotten?
If Senate and House Democratic Party leaders want to haul post-9/11 Bush administration officials into hearings to explain why they never contemplated the need to arm American soldiers against a possible terrorist attack on their own bases, they have my full support.
You can be sure that Osama bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez feel America’s humiliation, and they are laughing their asses off about it.
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: betrayal; forthood; guncontrol; military
To: J. Neil Schulman
Thanks Neil, the disarming of the military is disgusting and appreciate you and others trying to bring this to the forefront of the discussion.
2
posted on
11/13/2009 1:59:10 AM PST
by
iopscusa
(El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
To: J. Neil Schulman
Bravo.
Political Correctness is LITERALLY killing us. Our military needs to carry guns, when and if they want to, on base. There should be some form of weapon wherever we group in large numbers.
And there should be a charge of treason for this terrorist. Yes, TERRORIST.
3
posted on
11/13/2009 2:08:23 AM PST
by
Yaelle
To: Yaelle
The Beltway snipers weren’t charged with terrorism nor was Sgt. Asan Akbar. It’s not gonna happen.
4
posted on
11/13/2009 2:13:08 AM PST
by
BGHater
("real price of every thing ... is the toil and trouble of acquiring it")
To: BGHater
The Beltway snipers werent charged with terrorism nor was Sgt. Asan Akbar. Its not gonna happen. Nor were the bombers of the World Trade Center in 1993, the Murrah Bldg. in Okla City, Flight 800, the bombing of our embassies in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole, and probably several more under Clinton I am missing.
Democrats have difficulty going after their buddies.
5
posted on
11/13/2009 2:56:26 AM PST
by
Mind-numbed Robot
(Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
To: J. Neil Schulman
I’m glad you said this, Neil: because it is being said by foreign civilians overseas, in different ways. Not all of what is being said is kind.
Besides condolences, it has been difficult to know what to post about Ft Hood this past week. Well, no — it hasn’t been difficult to know what to say at all, because you said it eloquently: it has only been acutely awkward and uncomfortable.
I do not like criticizing the US or her military: it isn’t polite for foreign FRiends of the US to do that. Certainly not foreign *civilian* FRiends like me. And certainly not so close to Veteran’s Day.
What happened at Ft. Hood boggles the mind. That it was no accident and that it could so easily have been prevented makes what happened breathtakingly criminal — way beyond the treasonous acts of the shooter.
As with Pearl Harbor, there needs to be a robust investigation and careers need to be brought to an abrupt and untidy end. At very least.
Prayers up for the families of the slain, and for the wounded.
God Bless America
*DieHard the Hunter*
6
posted on
11/13/2009 3:01:21 AM PST
by
DieHard the Hunter
(Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fà g am bealach.)
To: J. Neil Schulman
Maybe someone who has been around a while can help me out here but as someone who served in the USAF in the 60's I can not remember any restrictions on (at least) owning a weapon on base although I can not be certain as to what if any restrictions there might have been with regards to "carrying" nor, whether each branch had their own regulations pertaining thereto.
I know I was stationed first in Japan and then in Hawaii
In Japan, no one was ever concerned for our individual safety on base (or even off) in the early 60's thus this was not even considered.
Ditto, Hawaii, when I landed there in the mid 60's.
However, when I got orders for Nam, I went out and purchased (locally) a .32 Auto (yeah, I know, not much stopping power, put small and easy to carry) and I know there was never any question as to whether I could do so or have in my possession on base for the 2 months prior to my shipping out
When I returned from Nam, I cross-trained into the OSI (Office of Special Investigation) whereby not only could we carry, but usually were encouraged to do so as we wore civilian clothes and conducted all sorts of investigations.
At the time, we had the same authority as all other Fed Agents and I remember traveling on flights, armed, without so much as a concern from anyone, though I think we used to let the airlines know who we were and that we were armed
As far as other USAF personnel, I can not remember what the policies were on bases in the US and I got out in 1970.
Would be interested in hearing what others may remember and if this culture of being restricted from owning a weapon is new or has been ongoing for decades.
7
posted on
11/13/2009 3:24:49 AM PST
by
Conservative Vermont Vet
((One of ONLY 37 Conservatives in the People's Republic of Vermont. Socialists and Progressives All))
To: J. Neil Schulman
Just another reason they’re not calling it terrorism. That way they don’t have to answer uncomfortable questions like “What anti-terror measures did you have in place?”
Ft Hood was less secure against terrorism than your typical midsized airport.
If there’s anything stupider than banning guns, it’s banning them using the honor system. At least at the airport they “trust but verify.”
To: J. Neil Schulman
My understanding is that this general “gun-free on base” policy goes back to WAY before Clinton. In fact, the killer was probably less likely to face immediate return fire on this base than at any randomly-chosen civilian setting in Texas.
I defer to those with background in the military for correction, if necessary.
9
posted on
11/13/2009 3:54:43 AM PST
by
Sherman Logan
("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
To: J. Neil Schulman
Taken at Veterans Day ceremonies at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier Looks as though the President forgot something...again
To: J. Neil Schulman
Where the hell were the MPs? If you speed on a base - anything above 15 mph - the MPs are all over you. Military bases should be the most secure places on Earth. We are at War! Why aren't there armed guards at every building & area of significance?
The military career of the officers responsible for base security should be at an end.
11
posted on
11/13/2009 5:04:20 AM PST
by
Mister Da
(The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
To: Conservative Vermont Vet
An enlisted airman couldn’t keep a gun in his possession at the bases I was at from 1963 to 1967. Any Personal weapons were kept at the Armory and had to be checked out if the owner wanted to use them.
12
posted on
11/13/2009 6:19:15 AM PST
by
seemoAR
To: J. Neil Schulman; basil; dbwz; ABriggs
Fort Hood = another gun free zone killing field!
13
posted on
11/13/2009 6:20:45 AM PST
by
2nd amendment mama
( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
To: J. Neil Schulman
There have been a few ret military leaders who had the guts to speak out and call it terrorism. I wish they were in charge.
14
posted on
11/13/2009 10:46:32 AM PST
by
Freedom2specul8
(I am Jim Thompson............................Please pray for our troops....)
To: Mind-numbed Robot
The laws changed after 911. Sgt. Akbar probalby could have been charged with terorism, or terrorist acts. I don't think the Beltway snipers could have been, because the law had not yet changed when they committed their Jihad.
That said, I really don't care if the charge them with terrorism or not. As long as it's perfectly clear that their concept of Islam motivated their acts, and they give 'em the Big Needle, I'm fine with that. They also need to search out all connections Hasan may have had, and get them the Big Needle too as accessories to murder and attempted murder, or a 2000 Lb JDAM as appropriate (for those located outside the US or a closely allied nation, like the UK, Austrailia, New Zealand or Canada. Or any other country who will turn them over to us ASAP.
15
posted on
11/13/2009 11:46:11 AM PST
by
El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
To: Mind-numbed Robot
The laws changed after 911. Sgt. Akbar probalby could have been charged with terorism, or terrorist acts. I don't think the Beltway snipers could have been, because the law had not yet changed when they committed their Jihad.
That said, I really don't care if the charge them with terrorism or not. As long as it's perfectly clear that their concept of Islam motivated their acts, and they give 'em the Big Needle, I'm fine with that. They also need to search out all connections Hasan may have had, and get them the Big Needle too as accessories to murder and attempted murder, or a 2000 Lb JDAM as appropriate (for those located outside the US or a closely allied nation, like the UK, Austrailia, New Zealand or Canada. Or any other country who will turn them over to us ASAP.
16
posted on
11/13/2009 11:46:23 AM PST
by
El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
To: Mister Da
Where the hell were the MPs? The civilian police and the MPs function pretty much interchangeably. Those civilian police were on site in minutes.
There are armed guards at the gates, and roving patrols too. But still, when seconds counted, the police were minutes away, MPs were 10s of minutes away, and armed troops didn't show up for around an hour, IIRC.
17
posted on
11/13/2009 11:51:23 AM PST
by
El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
To: seemoAR
An enlisted airman couldnt keep a gun in his possession at the bases I was at from 1963 to 1967. Any Personal weapons were kept at the Armory and had to be checked out if the owner wanted to use them. I think that was for those who lived in the barracks. Maybe even in military housing. I know I, and two others, took shotguns onto a base without having to even register them with the APs or other other base officials. I think we did mention to the gate guards, which could have been military or police, that we had them in the vehicle.
18
posted on
11/13/2009 11:55:03 AM PST
by
El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
To: El Gato
I only know about the barracks. One of my friends kept my .22 rifle off base in his trailer. The trailer got repossessed after he stopped making payments. I carried him home one night from work and the trailer and all he owned was gone. The telephone was sitting where the trailer had been parked. All he had was the clothes he was wearing. My rifle was gone also. He finally got it back for me. ;0)
19
posted on
11/13/2009 2:46:01 PM PST
by
seemoAR
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson