Green Room

A Tale of Two Mentalities

posted at 9:05 pm on November 8, 2009 by

There are so many categories for this post because it touches on so many hot-button issues; but I picked “Dhimmi of the Month” as the primary category. We never did get the polling software off the ground, so you can’t vote on it… but I’ll still use the category when appropriate.

Sadly, today it’s appropriate.

The Chief of Staff of the United States Army, Gen. George Casey, has just uncovered the greatest threat exposed by the Fort Hood massacre, presumably committed by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Is it radical jihadism? A future Islamic terrorist attack in the United States? The use of political correctness as a human shield for potential murderers? The inability of the Army to notice that one of its members swam in currents of hate so strong, they seared his soul (as Winston Churchill put it)?

No. Gen. Casey has identified the real danger: a potential anti-Moslem backlash!

General George Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said on Sunday that he was concerned that speculation about the religious beliefs of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of killing 12 fellow soldiers and one civilian and wounding dozens of others in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, could “cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers.”

“I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that,” General Casey said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union. “It would be a shame — as great a tragedy as this was — it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.”

General Casey, who was appeared on three Sunday news programs, used almost the same language during an interview on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” an indication of the Army’s effort to ward off bias against the more than 3,000 Muslims in its ranks.

“A diverse Army gives us strength,” General Casey, who visited Fort Hood Friday, said on “This Week….”

“The speculation could heighten the backlash,” he said on “This Week.” “What happened at Fort Hood is a tragedy and I believe it would be a greater tragedy if diversity became a casualty here.”

Losing our “diversity” would be “a greater tragedy” than the Fort Hood massacre itself? Does any rational human being actually believe this? And does any military historian believe that “a [religiously] diverse Army gives us strength?” I think it clear from context that Casey is claiming that having a tiny handful of Moslem soldiers — 3,000 out of nearly 1.1 million soldiers — somehow makes the Army “stronger.”

This is ludicrous. I’m positive having Moslems in our ranks doesn’t make us any weaker, but neither does it make us stronger, except marginally: If we banned all Moslems from the ranks, we might have to accept a lesser qualified Christian, Jewish, or Buddhist soldier instead of a more qualified Moslem. But the diminishment would be slight at best.

What really makes us stronger is:

  • The independence and initiative of our soldiers, especially officers and non-coms;
  • Our rigorous and realistic training (with live ammunition);
  • Our general population’s familiarity with firearms through civilian gun ownership;
  • Our technologically advanced weaponry and other warfighting systems;
  • And most of all, our ideology of liberty, which gives our servicemen reasons to fight more powerful than “because I told you to.”

Casey’s remark is yet another example of transforming the criminal into the victim; it’s political correctness run wild. And if George Casey cannot understand why Hasan’s religion — which appears by all reports to be a violent, extremist, jihadist sect of Islam — could be the primary motive behind the otherwise senseless spree killings, then Gen. Casey should be removed as Chief of Staff. Immediately.

It’s as stunning as if Eisenhower had said in 1942 that we should not “speculate” on the possible role National Socialism might play in the military aggression of the Axis, lest we create a “backlash” against soldiers with names like, well, Eisenhower. For heaven’s sake, the ideology of National Socialism was the primary cause of World War II… just as the ideology of violent Islamic jihadism is the primary cause of global Islamic terrorism.

Or doesn’t George Casey believe that? Of course, Casey also didnt’ believe in the “surge;” he thought it would inevitably fail, leading to American defeat in Iraq. Fortunately for us (and the Iraqis), he was kicked upstairs, and Gen. David Petraeus took his place as Commander of Multi-National Force – Iraq.

I find it curious that Gen. Casey is so worried about a potential “backlash” against other, non-radical Moslems — when has this ever happened, by the way? — but he seems utterly unconcerned about the possibility of another massacre at another military installation by another radical [REDACTED]. I guess each of us must prioritize his own concerns.

Does Casey’s response make him a “dhimmi,” by which we popularly mean a non-Moslem who bends over backwards to explain away or excuse the excesses of radical jihadism? Yes, I argue it does… because Casey tries to deflect blame from the horrific ideology of jihad: “Nothing to see here, folks; let’s just MoveOn!” We know that the jihadist mindset directly causes Islamic terrorism; this appears to be terrorism, perpetrated by a Moslem who increasingly appears to have been radicalized. But we can’t “speculate” on this seemingly urgent question for fear of that putative “backlash.”

Casey’s delusional political correctness was echoed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC, 82%), naturally enough:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina, and Sen. Jack Reed, a Democrat of Rhode Island, took also pains on Sunday to say that Muslims have served honorably in the military and at risk to their lives.

“At the end of the day this is not about his religion — the fact that this man was a Muslim,” Senator Graham said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

I wonder if Graham thinks that Osama bin Laden’s hatred of the West and of Jews has anything to do with his religion; I’m afraid to ask.

In order to conclude that Hasan’s religion had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack, one really must ignore an awful lot of evidence. For example (of both the evidence and how it can be brushed aside):

The San Antonio Express-News has reported that classmates in a graduate military medical program heard Major Hasan justify suicide bombings and make radical and anti-American statements. But investigators have said that Major Hasan might have suffered from emotional problems that were aggravated by the strain of working with veterans of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and by the knowledge that he might soon be deployed to those theaters as well.

I think I would go along with the general premise that every radical Islamic jihadist “suffers from emotional problems;” but I understand the defense:

Only a lad
You really can’t blame him
Only a lad
Society made him
Only a lad
He’s our responsibility
Only a lad
He really couldn’t help it
Only a lad
He didn’t want to do it
Only a lad
He’s underprivileged and abused
Perhaps a little bit confused

I note, however, that “understanding” is not the same as “exonerating.”

Before we swing to the second “mentality,” let’s encapsulate the Casey mentality here:

On the base Sunday morning, mourners were asked [by the garrison chaplain] to pray for Major Hasan and his family, The Associated Press reported.

Yeah. That and not blaming the perpetrator are the most urgent tasks before us right now.

There is, however, another way to respond to the Fort Hood “tragedy” (man-caused disaster?); it was exemplified today by the man who is rapidly becoming one of my favorite senators:

A key U.S. senator called Sunday for an investigation into whether the Army missed signs that the man accused of opening fire at Fort Hood had embraced an increasingly extremist view of Islamic ideology.

Sen. Joe Lieberman’s call came as word surfaced that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan apparently attended the same Virginia mosque as two Sept. 11 hijackers in 2001, at a time when a radical imam preached there.

God forbid we should “speculate” about how Hasam’s religion might have slightly influenced his murderous actions. “This is not — the radical imam — I knew…!”

Classmates participating in a 2007-2008 master’s program at a military college complained repeatedly to superiors about what they considered Hasan’s anti-American views. Dr. Val Finnell said Hasan gave a presentation at the Uniformed Services University that justified suicide bombing and even told classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution.

Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, wants Congress to determine whether the shootings constitute a terrorist attack.

“If Hasan was showing signs, saying to people that he had become an Islamist extremist, the U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance,” Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, said on “Fox News Sunday.” “He should have been gone.”

Couldn’t we arrange for Gen. George Casey to be gone? He could be kicked upstairs again, this time to junior assistant deputy shavetail to the RINO Secretary of the Army, John McHugh. Then we could replace Casey with a new Chief of Staff, one with a mentality more like Joe Lieberman than George Casey.

Alas, that wouldn’t work: The new Chief would have to be nominated by Barack H. Obama… and the One would probably name John Murtha!

Cross-posted to Big Lizards

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

No wonder Bush had to replace Casey with Petraeus in Iraq..

Wethal on November 8, 2009 at 9:21 PM

Worried about an anti-Mulim backlash??? Where’s the concern for the obvious Muslim anti-American action? Repeated examples of American Muslims murdering fellow American military personnel and they’re worried about an anti-Muslim backlash! That idiot Janet Napolitano is making the same argument – they obviously have their marching orders from the Muslim-in-Chief.

PatMac on November 8, 2009 at 9:36 PM

Does this general even have a clue as to who the enemy is?

Kissmygrits on November 8, 2009 at 9:52 PM

The Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, is in the United Arab Emirates. She reacts to the massacre at Fort Hood, in the process shedding light on what the Obama administration means by “homeland security”:

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — The U.S. Homeland Security secretary says she is working to prevent a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas.

Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday’s rampage by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim who reportedly expressed growing dismay over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Arabs must think we are stark, raving mad–a proposition that, as to the administration, is hard to argue with.

A related comment from Powerline.

Wethal on November 8, 2009 at 10:07 PM

This story gets more insane everyday.

rrpjr on November 8, 2009 at 10:14 PM

The generals care about metaphorical blood than about real blood. It matters more to them whether “diversity” is a casualty than about whether American soldiers become casualties. Being on the right side politically is career life and death for them. They don’t care as much about what is real life and death for others.

Compare General Konstantin Rokossovsky. He was purged, and tortured. (Real torture: fingernails lost, teeth knocked out, ribs cracked.) Later, there was a need for generals, so he was rehabilitated. When Stalin decided that Operation Bagration should have only one axis of attack, Rokossovsky persistently talked back to him, insisting correctly that it needed to be two. Though the usual result of that would have been execution, or being sent back to the “camps” for more torture till the uppity general died of it, in this case Stalin gave way, and Operation Bagration became known to the Germans as “the Destruction of Army Group Center”.

It is not true that when a general might be condemned for standing up for truth, military necessity and the needs of his warriors, he has “no choice” but to lie for his own good. There is a different choice, if you have the fighting spirit to make it.

If ought to be deeply humiliating to generals like General Casey to reflect that theoretically they are in the same profession as Konstantin Rokossovsky.

David Blue on November 8, 2009 at 10:32 PM

Here are some fine US muslims exercising their 1st amendment rights in the aftermath of Ft. Hood.

In time of war, particularly WWII, the US did intern west coast Japanese, both Japanese nationals and US citizens by virtue of birth. Less known is that German and Italian nationals in the US were also interned, though in fewer numbers. Michelle Malkin wrote a book in defense of the Japanese internment camps.

As US citizens, we have certain rights — that does not include blind trust. We ARE at war, and citizens of many nations cheer when we take casualties. These nations are comprised of muslim majority populations. Having an open mind is a good thing, but not so open your brain falls out.

Enjoyed your article.

GnuBreed on November 9, 2009 at 3:05 AM

First of all I think that Casey is totally wrong in his comments…. Islam, that is radical Islam was in fact the motive behind the slayings at Ft. Hood. Does that mean that I am going to be nasty to all those Moslems that I see every day? Nope.

Second, it was interesting to note that another Moslem who took on Hasan made the comment that he had an argument over the meaning of jihad. The other man was Pakistani, (not a radical) and he claimed that it meant inner struggle kind of meaning, but Hasan argued with him telling him he was wrong. What is true, is that in some sects of Islam they did in fact turn the meaning around so that Islam for them became something that was peaceful, not violent. There are plenty of Muslims who think along those lines.

Third, if someone in the army does not have a really good look at the loyalties of the Muslim soldiers then I fear that there might be more of these attacks. For example Hasan has a protege by the name of Duane. If Hasan has talked Duane around, then this person could be a powder keg in the future. How many more at Ft. Hood think in the same way? I ask this without taking away from those brave men and women who happen to be Muslim soldiers, some of whom have died in service to their country.

Fourth, political correctness is killing all of us. Ditto for Dhimmitude, which is part and parcel of political correctness these days. If we live in fear of the rage of the Islamists then we lose.

I have seen no evidence of a backlash against Muslims. There has been no mention of a backlash in any news report. It seems that some Muslims are either hypersensitive or they put out this narrative because they enjoy the victim status because it really is “sucker” bait for the Dhimmis who will once again cringe and bow and scrape to these people who do in fact want to subjugate all of us… not just in the USA.

maggieo on November 9, 2009 at 4:46 AM