Thoughts about Fort Hood…….

The tragic events at Fort Hood, happened as I was in transit last Thursday. I've been going back and forth as to whether to write about it-and indeed what to write.

First of all-I have found myself pretty saddened by much of the reaction of the news and the blogosphere-who have, in general missed the point, namely that this was a criminal act more so than any part of some terrorist conspiracy.

Many right wing blogs have gone overboard about two things: 1) the fact that Hasan was a Muslim and should have been caught and identified earlier and 2) Obama has handled things wrong here and this is proof he is bungling the war on terror. I partially accept the first conclusion and totally reject the latter. This is not a matter for the President per se-its a matter for the Army to fix itself.

Guys like this one-don't just snap. I think the signs that he was a substandard performer must have been there for a while. I can't help but think that had he been in any profession within the military besides the medical one-he would have been shoved out the door a long time ago.  To have an army psychiatrist giving talks on Jihad in a military context and not have anyone call him on it, or take measures to monitor him, or challenge him is -well, just amazing.

However, that does not make it more than what it was- a criminal act made by a man who had lost his judgement. Substitute the words  "angry Christian anti-abortion fanatic" in the place of the words" crazed Muslim fanatic" and you have the same crime nonetheless. The key issue here is not to overreact or go on a tirade. Either American is true to its ideals or it is not-and that means people have the freedom to worship as they see fit. Even in the military. They do not have the freedom though to violate the norms of the dialogue of their profession and its clear Hasan was allowed to do that.

This is a tragic crime-nothing more, nothing less. Those who are trying to read anything more into it-are asking for trouble.

Could it have been prevented? Perhaps-especially given the signs this guy put off. Then again maybe not.  I do believe that he could have been he could have been driven out of the Army earlier-especially since its apparent he was not the pick of the litter. 

Thomas Ricks has some great points that I do agree with:

1. The shooter obviously was a low performer. Why was he shuffled along through the system, instead of simply being let go? I worry that the military often keeps the bottom 5 percent of performers simply because it is easier than getting rid of them.

2. Was he not let go for fear of appearing prejudiced? If so, someone is guilty of moral cowardice, of failing to do the hard right thing instead of the easy wrong.

3. If, as reported, he tended to rant instead of practicing medicine, keeping him on a disservice to the wounded soldiers he counseled. What was his record of treatment, compared to other therapists? Did soldiers complain about him? This should all be reachable information.

4. Did Walter Reed have such a file of complaints about him? If so, was Fort Hood made aware of this when he was transferred? Or was this a classic case of dumping a difficult soldier on another command, in this case with catastrophic results?

5. There appear to have been a number of warning signs. Obviously, it is easy in retrospect to see them. But is there anything that can be done differently? General Casey, the Army chief of staff, said over the weekend that he is worried about a "backlash" against Muslim troops. I think the best way to prevent such an overreaction would be to re-assure soldiers that the Army is uncovering and dismissing Muslim soldiers who veer into extremism. 

There are no larger conclusions to be drawn here. I'd love to point out that this gives a big lie to the "fight them there-so we don't have to fight them here" argument in favor of protracted war in the Middle East, but I can't. Even if we were not in Iraq or Afghanistan, this thing could  have happened-and has happened before. I remain opposed to continued presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, however its not germane to this particular topic.

Its also pretty silly to draw some of the other conclusions that have been drawn-like the one from the idiot at Slate Magazine-who believes that since the gunman was brought down by a female MP, it somehow should drive the Army to lift its ban on women in combat units. Apples and Oranges and has been for a long time now.

Its also not a reason to go on some big witch hunt of profiling, or anything else. The rules were there to get this guy already-it seems apparent they were not followed.

Its also pretty stupid to try to excuse this as PTSD or anything else. Its a crime and if he wakes up-he needs to be tried and punished. I think this guy did not want to go on deployment-tough. Its not an excuse.

I do wish the Chief of Staff of the Army had not said this: ""I think the speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here," Casey said."

Diversity is not worth talking about here-criminal conduct is.