Posted on 11/11/2009 12:13:39 PM PST by Delacon
As we and the Manchester Union-Leader noted earlier, the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hasan, escaped any preventive action because of a politically-correct obsession with "diversity," which made officers reluctant to report Hasan's extremist remarks in favor of terrorism and against non-Muslims, lest they be accused of discrimination or insensitivity.
Some military leaders, catering to liberal Congressional leaders and the Obama Administration, continue to cling tightly to the "diversity" dogma, demanding that those in the military keep silent rather than saying things that might call into question their "diversity" obsession:
"Naval Academy senior commanders decided during the World Series to remove two Midshipmen from the color guard that appeared. What was their offense? The color guard was deemed too white and too male. There was accordingly a push to make the color guard more 'diverse.' Two members of the color guard were removed and replaced by a Pakistani and a woman to achieve the requisite 'diversity.' The Pakistani unfortunately forgot his cap and shoes. He himself had to be replaced at the last minute by one of the two middies removed earlier. The midshipmen have reportedly been ordered not to speak of these events."
Our government's obsession with "diversity" also created the climate in which officers were afraid to report the suspicious behavior of the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal M. Hasan. Although his anti-American, pro-terrorist views were common knowledge, "a fear of appearing discriminatory . . . kept officers from filing a formal written complaint," reports the Associated Press. As a result, he escaped any disciplinary action or review of his fitness.
The Fort Hood shooter had previously said that Muslims should rise up against the military, "repeatedly expressed sympathy for suicide bombers," was pleased by the terrorist murder of an army recruiter, and publicly called for the beheading or burning of non-Muslims, talking "about how if you’re a nonbeliever the Koran says you should have your head cut off, you should have oil poured down your throat, you should be set on fire." But thanks to a politically-correct double standard, nothing was done to remove him from a position where he could harm others.
The lesson of the Fort Hood shootings is that applying politically-correct double standards, rather than treating people equally, can be lethal.
(Intelligence officials knew that Nidal Hasan, the soldier who killed 13 people at Fort Hood, was trying to contact Al Qaeda. He once attended the same mosque as 9/11 terrorists.)
In a desire to curry favor with the liberal Congress that funds it (and the Obama Administration), the military has increasingly adopted politically-correct policies that abandon equal treatment. One example is racial preferences in admissions to the military academies, imposed in the name of “diversity.” (In practice, “diversity” seems to mean crude “racial proportionality”: it is harder for Asians to be admitted to the academies than for whites and Hispanics, and harder for whites and Hispanics to be admitted than for African-Americans. Such preferences are of dubious legality under Supreme Court precedent.)
In this climate of political correctness and double standards, it is understandable that officers were afraid to file complaints about Hasan, for fear that they would incur the wrath of the “diversity” police.
Even now, the Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, denies that the military failed to pick up the obvious warning signs about Hasan, and he is more concerned that the shootings will undermine the army’s commitment to “diversity,” than he is about the tragedy itself. He claims that a backlash against diversity would be an even "worse" tragedy than the one that took place at Fort Hood. He remains wedded to a policy of "zero tolerance" for criticism of "diversity," i.e., double standards. He seems more concerned that “diversity” will become a “casualty” of such shootings than that American soldiers will.
President Obama’s initial response to the tragedy last Thursday was embarrassing, even for some liberal journalists. Obama’s initial remarks about the tragedy came buried in the middle of a speech laced with “wildly disconnected” ramblings about an unrelated topic, starting with a “joking shout-out.” Even the liberal Boston Globe chided the president for a speech lacking in ”empathy” for the victims.
In an absurd display of political correctness, early media reports chose to harp on the false claim that the killer had PTSD (which he didn’t: he never even served overseas) or the unsupported claim that he had been subjected to harassment (support groups for Muslim soldiers say they have received no recent reports of harassment).
The US Military needs to REDUCE it’s Flag/General Officer ranks by 3/4 .
And you guys wonder if “our” soldiers will shoot us when the crackdown comes.
Happy Veterans’ Day.
Wahhabist Islam is sedition. Any one in the armed services who espouses same needs to be drummed out.
This PC treatment began in earnest under former President George W Bush. Many, many articles were here on FR concerning the policies of that Administration.
This is not new, it is just now in the hands of exploiters of it ... liberals.
”A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
By spreading this definition around, perhaps we can employ one of the more effective methods of deflating and defeating the fools who practice and promote it: RIDICULE.
Unless stopped – and soon – PC will DESTROY Western Civilization -- if it hasn’t already.
PASS IT ON!!
THEN PASS THE KOOL AID!!
PC = Truth Suppression
With a muzzie in the White Hoouse you didn't really expect them to take any action, did you?
Unfortunately, most of the "Generals" we have now are cut in the panty-waist Weasley Clark mold. They moved up the ranks by pursuing "politically correct" agendas and distancing themselves from any controversy, including making any real decisions or taking any real stands. They have been aware of groups like the muslims, black power etc. for a long time, but they did not want to rock the boat, so they did absolutely NOTHING!
Conversely,
career officers know that their career is _over_ if they get involved in something that is viewed as non-PC.
This is why those people died.
The US Military needs to REDUCE it’s Flag/General Officer ranks by 3/4 .
I liked what Bill Bennet had to say on The Corner yesterday(emphasis is mine).
More and more information continues to come out about Nidal Hasan and the Ft. Hood massacre. As I surmised, memos will be released and institutions or institutional officers will not look good. Already some of this is coming out. This needs to be bigger than the 1991 Tailhook incident which dominated the news for a year, I fear that it will not be. You may recall the Tailhook scandal involved a party of Navy personnel where tens of women and men complained of sexual harassment by fellow servicemen and women. Nobody, however, was killed. 4,000 male military attendees were interviewed several times, many as much as five times or more, and heads rolled. I want the same thing here — I fear the story ends in a month.
But as I said, already we’re learning more and more: CNN is reporting that Hasan’s communications with a radical Imam were flagged as early as 2008. Listen to this, quote: “Military officials told CNN on Monday that intelligence agencies intercepted communications (some 10 to 20 e-mails) from Hasan to al-Awlaki (a radical imam on the U.S. intelligence radar screen going back to the 1990s) and shared them with other U.S. government agencies. But federal authorities dropped the inquiry into Hasan’s communications after deciding that the messages warranted no further action, one of the officials said. “According to the FBI, investigators from one of its Joint Terrorism Task Forces determined ‘that the content of those communications was consistent with research being conducted by Maj. Hasan in his position as a psychiatrist at the Walter Reed Medical Center [in Washington].’“
So there you have two investigations — dropped: one by the FBI and one by army personnel at Walter Reed.
You have ABC reporting that “a fellow Army doctor who studied with Hasan” said “He would frequently say he was a Muslim first and an American second. And that came out in just about everything he did at the University.”
That officer “said he and other Army doctors complained to superiors about Hasan’s statements.
“And we questioned how somebody could take an oath of office . . . be an officer in the military and swear allegiance to the constitution and to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic and have that type of conflict.”
And the Washington Post reports today a year and a half ago, this model officer was telling people in his chain of command the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting. Hasan stood before his supervisors and about 25 other mental-health staff members and lectured on Islam, suicide bombers, and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan. He said, “It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims.”
How many signals, nay, how many direct statements, threats, and pieces of evidence, did the military need here?
We have had other testimony from colleagues as well.
But my larger point is this: Hasan was known — by the military, by the FBI, and by his fellow officers to be suspicious at the very least. If we can turn the Navy upside down over sexual harassment, if we can discharge officers for stating they are gay, why can we not separate officers suspected of having ties to terrorists and stating things like, “non-believers (infidels) should have their head cut off, and oil poured down their throat, and be set on fire”?
Why are chiefs of staff of the army saying things like: “I think we have to be very careful. . . .Our diversity not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse”?
You connect those dots and you will have your answer. I’m used to this kind of talk in a university — perhaps a university that outlaws ROTC. I’m surprised to find this kind of talk and attitude from on high at institutions ROTC trains under and for, namely one of the last “hard places” in America.
I well recall the 2006 Nickle Mines Amish School massacre of six children. And I recall Jay Nordlinger saying: “This is what we would have thought would have been one of the last safe places in America.” He was wrong — we would have thought a place like Ft. Hood a safe place in America, safe from our own U.S. military hosting an officer-terrorist (that’s what we shall call him, an officer-terrorist). I also would have thought the Army would have been one of the last, or one of the first, hard places in America as defined by Michael Barone (“the part of American life subject to competition and accountability where the military trains under live fire — as opposed to a soft America that seeks to instill self-esteem. Hard America plays for keeps.”).
Well if we want to be safe, if we want to defeat the jihadist threat, we’d better reinforce hard America — and, sad to say, starting with our military leadership.
President Obama is going to Ft. Hood today for a memorial service there. We will all be sorrowful and our hearts and minds and souls will be with everyone at Ft. Hood. My worry about these services now is that they are a) not angry enough and b) that they are the end and not the beginning. Ever since the week after 9/11/2001, anger has eluded memorial services (with the exception of Paul Wellstone’s memorial — that, somehow, was a moment of anger for the Left). It is an American thing to pray, to be sorrowful, and then to be angry and fight. I hope we still have the stuff for the last two parts.
Any way the victims/victims’ families can sue the U.S. Army?
My son was in bubba’s army. PC dictated ALL promotions.
Race and gender before merit.
This did wonders for morale. Every officer who could leave, did so.
What you had left is what passes for leadership now.
When I saw that general saying that the “loss of diversity” would be a bigger tragedy than the terrorist murders of 14 soldiers, I was literally speechless. If one of those victims was a friend or relative of mine, I would find that general and speak to him personally, whatever the consequences.
And you guys wonder if “our” soldiers will shoot us when the crackdown comes.
_______________
Don’t bet on it, they just might shoot their any officers they think are traitors. I can assure about 70% of the military would not take the side of the usurper or anyone that sides with him if he tried to become a full blown tyrant.
And you guys wonder if “our” soldiers will shoot us when the crackdown comes.
_______________
Don’t bet on it, they just might shoot any officers they think are traitors. I can assure you about 70% of the military would not take the side of the usurper or anyone that sides with him if he tried to become a full blown tyrant.
It may take a military person to answer this question, but is there an anonymous process through which military personnel could have reported Hasan’s comments? I understand that anonymity would have reduced the consideration given to such complaints, but enough anonymous reports could/would have demonstrated the high likelihood of the threat that was eventually realized through Hasan’s actions.
I understand and agree. I have nearly 30 years stretching back to Bubba and before.
My comment was more to be in line with PC and terrorism which is what is being buried by both the GW Bush and B Obama Administrations.
Does anyone remember a Major Coughlin during the Bush years?
PC is killing us in the war on terror! You can not fight an enemy you can not even call by their rightful name.
Yes the Clinton years were bad for the military. E5’s and below actually qualified for Food Stamps and other welfare programs because of pay. Yes promotions were botched.
Been there. Seen it. Bur I really believe that as important as those wrongs were that need righted ... the wrongs being committed now will KILL us!
“Any way the victims/victims’ families can sue the U.S. Army”?
I was saying to my wife yesterday that the one good thing was that this can’t get covered up by the military and the media because the families will sue and disclosure will expose the ineptitude of the government and military. I am no legal expert, I just hope I am right.
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.