The Fort Hood shootings were a despicable, horrific act. I can’t even begin to imagine what the families of the victims are going through.

My guess is there will be even greater scrutiny of those within the military who subscribe to the Islamic faith. How much and to what extent the military should monitor a soldier’s religious orientation can and should be debated, but there is no denying incidents like this will only fan the flames of suspicion and hate.

Another similar incident where a US soldier who was a Muslim and turned on his fellow soldiers took place on a military base in Kuwait. Not sure if people remember, but in 2003, a deranged US soldier lobbed grenades into his fellow soldier’s tents. The solider then open fired on them as they ran from the exploding grenades. After the incident, the solider charged with murdering his fellow soldiers apparently had written in a diary his desire to kill US soldiers once he arrived in the Middle East.

But there are also cases where soldiers have just plain “cracked” and killed for entirely different reasons:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30678715/

The challenge to be had is how do we do everything in our power to keep our troops safe from threats coming from within. To do this requires some balancing between recognizing when legitimate red flags arise, but not persecuting an entire population of people based simply on the religion they practice.

I prefer to wait on more details before I comment on the role of Islam in this incident. It may be correlation without causation, or it may be something more insidious. I haven’t been following the story that closely to give my opinion.

However, I would like to point out that I seriously doubt this shooting would have occurred if soldiers were treated like other government employees (or private sector employees) – that is to say: they have at-will employment. It seems to me a primary motivation was that Mr. Hasan did not want to get shipped overseas, yet he, and all other members of the military, was not free to leave his job. Once soldiers sign the contract, the military owns them, they are prisoners.

(Of course the relative merits of this employment structure are a separate discussion.)

An “At-will” army is an interesting thought. But I wouldn’t want to be on the battlefield ready for an assault wondering if my buddies on either side were contemplating resignation.
I too prefer to wait on some more information before I go to judgment on what happened here. I know if must be difficult to be alternately faithed in this land of religious freedom these trying days. It must be terribly hard to be Muslim in Fort Hood, TX. Our war on terrorism seems some days to degenerate into a religious jihad/crusade. I wonder if we will ever learn to quit killing each other for thinking and believing incorrectly.

I can’t really speak to what Hasan’s thought processes were when he decided to do what he did, but I think that the results show that his belief system certainly didn’t help stop him.

I am not sure how religiously diverse the military currently is. When I was in (94-99), it did not seem that diverse to me. Then again, from my experiences, special forces tended to attract more agnostic and atheistic sailors…I cannot recall a single outwardly religious person from my platoon, but I can definitely recall a minimum of 7-8 men who held religion and faith to be weak, ignorant, and/or a waste of time. We tended to be realists, and the whole “there are no atheists in foxholes” adage would appear to be BS in that we went through quite a few hostile situations and, as far as I know, no one “found God.” I don’t recall any Christian proselytization, but I think that has been more of an issue in the Air Force…probably too much free time on their hands.

Whether scrutinizing Muslim soldiers is “right” or not won’t really change things…it currently happens and will most likely continue to happen, probably to a more advanced degree. I imagine that, to the average solder, Muslims resemble the “enemy” enough as it is…the Fort Hood situation will only exacerbate the situation. As the saying goes, the military defends democracy and free speech, but it does not practice it.

I think that the military’s contractual employment is set up the way it is for a specific reason: there is a very likely chance that a servicemember will be placed in a situation that they disagree with or will likely have a negative effect on their well being. If they have the freedom of just quitting, then military goals might not ever be accomplished. This is not a general judgment as to whether the military’s actions are justified or not, it’s just what I consider to be logical. I think that examples regarding government workers committing violent acts regardless of their contractual restrictions can be drawn from the Postal service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal).

@Andy W.

Good point. Any kind of religious extremism, whether it be tied to Christianity, Islam, or any other religion, should send up some red flags in the military. As should involvement with hate groups and any other ties to extreme, volatile organizations. Those with a criminal record of violence should continue to be highly scrutinized.

I believe part of the problem may lie in the military’s desire and need to recruit even more individuals. Having an all volunteer force depends on a healthy, continuous number of recruits signing up. Fighting two wars on two different fronts and extending service men and women’s tours has taken its toll. There is even a greater pressure on military recruitment offices to meet quotas on new recruits.

The NY Times ran a story a few years back detailing the military’s recruitment woes and citing how the U.S. Army has “lowered the bar” when it comes to recruitment:

From the story:

“It (the U.S. Army) has also increased the number of so-called “moral waivers” to recruits with criminal pasts, even as the total number of recruits dropped slightly. The sharpest increase was in waivers for serious misdemeanors, which make up the bulk of all the Army’s moral waivers. These include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular homicide.”

“Since more than 125,000 service members with criminal histories have joined the military in the last three years, Mr. Belkin said, “you have a sizeable population that has been incarcerated and is not used to the same cultural norms as everybody else.”

“The chance that one of those individuals is going to commit an atrocity or disobey an order is higher,” he said. “Many of those individuals can be good soldiers, but in some cases they have special needs. The military should address those needs rather than pretending they don’t exist.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/us/14military.html?ei=5090&en=52e01ef94ac71dab&ex=1329109200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1195823679-eQE42ETJfaUmLFAF9W5fYw

For the record, I didn’t mean to redirect the discussion. The question of military contractual employment IS structured in the current incarnation for a reason. Gerald pointed out the primary reason I can think of to support such a structure.

…the military’s contractual employment is set up the way it is for a specific reason: there is a very likely chance that a servicemember will be placed in a situation that they disagree with or will likely have a negative effect on their well being. If they have the freedom of just quitting, then military goals might not ever be accomplished.

Again, whether this is *good* is another question, but such contracts can be justified on utilitarian grounds.

Opps, i put in extra words….

That should read: “Military contractual employment IS structured in the current incarnation for a reason.”

BTW, why can’t i delete my comments? I demand more comment features!!!

I strongly suspect that if you you have an “at will” army of about any sort you just end up with mercenaries.

I don’t think anything’s clear enough with the limited facts we have at hand for this specific incident. There are too many updated and conflicting reports as to who knew what, and what Hasan actually did beforehand, such as whether or not he even sought to avoid being deployed.

If all Hasan wanted was to get out of the Army, he could have claimed he was gay. That works.
The fact that he found it preferable to shoot lots of people says something, I think, about him and about Islam. As you know, political correctness isn’t my thing. I have no problem laying this whole affair at the feet of Islam, at least until more evidence suggests I’m wrong. He did, after all, yell God is great in Arabic (not his first language, BTW) before starting his rampage. Maybe you don’t see Islamic fanaticism in that, but I sure do.
Speaking of political correctness, anyone else notice that the initial gushing about the bravery of the female officer who shot Hasan was a complete fabrication? Hasan was shot by a male officer. Sorry ladies.

BTW, and off topic, I hope my snotty letters to the News-Sentinel aren’t embarrassing anyone here (see today’s paper, Nov. 13).
I have not publicly associated my views with this organization, which can speak for itself.
But the drivel that passes for religious scholarship on their editorial pages drives me nuts.

Oh hello there, I seem to have forgotten to have left this link back in my earlier comment.

http://scriptoids.blogspot.com/2009/11/bodyguards-severed-tongue-or-maybe-not.html

When I first heard about this business, I have to say that my initial reaction was similar to littlejohn’s. But, the limited coverage that I have read mostly suggested that Mr. Hasan was dreading deployment, which is why I brought up the issue of military contracts.
Hopefully there will be some in-depth coverage of his motives in the coming weeks. The fact that he’s still alive gives us an opportunity for the truth to come out.

Regardless of his motives, I strongly second the comment made by Andy S. about how any kind of religious extremism should send up warnings.

I guess I really am hijacking the thread here, but hey, I was invited. If you want to join the fun at the News Sentinel, go here:
http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091113/EDITORIAL/911130342
The letter comments are listed confusingly, with the first comments at the bottom and working upward. I hope to see some familiar names, if the spirit moves you.
Cheers.

I’m trying to decide if Andy W. meant excepted there or if “accepted” with a smiley works as well… heh.

There’s little point in contributing to the comments on the current newspaper site. They’re just going to erase them and paywall the content later.

Well, I’m already a crotchety old man, and it’s kind of fun. As long as they’ll let me, I’ll raise hell at the News Sentinel (and my wife works for the JG).
It’s fun tweaking their tails then standing back and watching them stumble all over the place.
If you’re familiar with the Bible (I graduated from a Disciples of Christ college, with all that entails), you can just quote parts of their own book to them. With any luck, I can cause someone’s brain to explode.
It’s amazing how many Christians apparently haven’t read the obscene gibberish in Deuteronomy. My favorite book!

The following is a rather interesting blog post about some of the intricacies of the Ft. Hood shooting, mainly focusing on firearms, “The cause of and solution to all life’s problems”, but interesting nonetheless. It also takes potshots at somebody most commenters here will recognize: Paul Helmke.

Hasan Had a Carry Permit (and Other Irrelevancies)

Interesting article.
Firearms have always been an interesting question in this country. Both sides have a view that is simple, passionately held and probably wrong.
Reducing the number of firearms would logically reduce the number of shootings, but traditional gun control laws have the effect of taking guns from everyone but the people who really shouldn’t have them. After all, why should people who ignore laws against murder and robbery obey laws restricting guns?
Short of sweeping the entire country with an electromagnet, I don’t see how any effective anti-gun law could ever work. And even that would require a constitutional amendment. The Second Amendment may start out with a patriotic tip of the hat to the militias, but it ends with a guarantee of gun rights to “the people.”
I admit I have no answers here. Restricting gun sales to religious fanatics obviously would violate at least two amendments. And you can bet atheists would be at the top of any such list, despite the fact that atheists are nearly as rare as Jains in our prisons.
BTW, even though I’m a gun enthusiast, I had never before heard of the FN pistol and the 5.7 mm round it’s designed to fire.
For those of you who aren’t gun-savvy, the 5.7 is a very small, bottlenecked round, shaped like a typical rifle round, only tiny. The actual projectile is only .22 caliber, very light, with a pointed tip. It is clearly designed for penetration, even against armor. It’s easy to see how 20 could easily fit into the magazine of a standard-size pistol. It’s an ideal military submachine-gun ammunition. I have to wonder what FN was thinking when they designed a pistol for it. Short-range hunting of squirrels wearing ballistic vests? A ban on this particular round/gun combination wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. It seems like the perfect terrorist’s weapon.

littlejohn wrote:

I have to wonder what FN was thinking when they designed a pistol for it. … It seems like the perfect terrorist’s weapon.

Slightly off-topic:
As I’m sure you know, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the people from an oppresive government. Guns are the only device that can accomplish that. Should the need arise, I’ll gladly be counted as a ‘terrorist’ and would be happy to have such a tool.

It (the U.S. Army) has also increased the number of so-called “moral waivers” to recruits with criminal pasts

Maybe now litterbugs will finally be able to serve.

@littlejohn: I think in the U.S. that it is at least partly a cultural issue. Guns are a big part of the frontier mythos of rugged individualism. But you do have to wonder at the sheer number of guns in this country. For instance, the U.S., as of 2007, had roughly 90 guns per 100 residents. Contrast this to Switzerland which has mandatory military service for all males who are required to keep their army-issued weapon at home and undergo yearly mandatory training. Switzerland’s gun ownership is about 46 guns per 100 residents. In Canada and the UK, the numbers are 31.5 and 5.6 respectively. Also, according to Wikipedia:

Homicide rates in the United States are two to four times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it. Higher rates are found in developing countries and those with political instability.

Homicides committed with handguns account for roughly half of the total number of homicides in the U.S.

Forgive me for not looking up the homicide by handgun rates for other countries, but believe me that among developed countries they are an order of magnitude lower than in the U.S. So it appears that we both have more guns per capita, and we’re a more violent society.

Statistics like those are why I think it’s a cultural issue, and changing that is going to be very hard. I don’t think laws like mandatory waiting periods and required training can hurt though. Of course, none of this is relevant to the Fort Hood shootings which were more or less an anomaly.

Apropos of nothing: I looked up how Fort Wayne compares to the national average. Did you know you’re 18% more likely to be murdered in Fort Wayne, 54% more likely to be raped, but 23% less likely to be robbed? Those numbers are almost six years old though, so probably are no longer accurate.

The Fort Wayne numbers don’t really surprise me. For reasons that aren’t immediately obvious, at least to me, red states like Indiana and Texas almost invariably have the highest rates of mayhem, out-of-wedlock births, school dropouts, high church attendance and every other index of social deterioration, and I doubt guns have much to do with it. It would be easy to blame Republican influence on school systems (abstenence education, creationism, etc.), but that would be shooting sitting ducks. However, as someone once said, when the ducks just sit there….

Update:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-11-19-fort-hood-senate-panel_N.htm