While some on these boards wanted to blame lax gun control, it was pretty obvious to me--as someone who was familiar with the Army and with the politically-correct environment of government--that the ultimate problem was an unwillingness to recognize a threat and take appropriate action. Fear is the controlling factor in middle management positions of government these days. If a middle manager reports someone like Hasan, he/she risks being labeled a racist, an Islamophobe, or whatever the fashionable term of the moment is.

No one should have missed the warning signs.

Hasan advanced to a two-year fellowship at USUHS…Less than a month into the fellowship, in August 2007, Hasan gave another off-topic presentation on a violent Islamist extremist subject instead of on a health care subject. This time, Hasan’s presentation was so controversial that the instructor had to stop it after just two minutes when the class erupted in protest to Hasan’s views. The presentation was entitled, Is the War on Terror a War on Islam: An Islamic Perspective? Hasan’s proposal for this presentation promoted this troubling thesis: that U.S. military operations are a war against lslam rather than based on non-religious security considerations. Hasan’s presentation accorded with the narrative of violent Islamist extremism that the West is at war with Islam. Hasan’s paper was full of empathetic and supportive recitation of other violent Islamist extremist views, including defense of Osama bin Laden, slanted historical accounts blaming the United States for problems in the Middle East, and arguments that anger at the United States is justifiable…The instructor who stopped the presentation said that Hasan was sweating, quite nervous, and agitated after being confronted by the class.

Hasan’s promotion of violent Islamist extremist beliefs continued after the presentation. One classmate said that Hasan supported suicide bombings in another class. He told several classmates that his religion took precedence over the U.S. Constitution he swore to support and defend as a U.S. military officer. . .

Hasan was a chronic poor performer during his residency and fellowship. The program directors overseeing him at Walter Reed and USUHS both ranked him in the bottom 25 percent…Yet Hasan received evaluations that flatly misstated his actual performance. Hasan was described in the evaluations as a star officer, recommended for promotion to major, whose research on violent Islamist extremism would ass ist U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

So, why did they miss it?

One of the officers who reported Hasan to superiors opined that Hasan was permitted to remain in service because of “political correctness” and ignorance of religious practices. That officer added that he believed that concern about potential discrimination complaints stopped some individuals from challenging Hasan. We are concerned that exactly such worries about “political correctness” inhibited Hasan’s superiors and colleagues who were deeply troubled by his behavior from taking the actions against him that could have prevented the attack at Fort Hood.

Because those above Hasan knew they would be risking their own careers if they came down to hard on him. It would have been career suicide to go after him--or so they thought.

interesting ... hopefully this case study will equip us to better handle these situations in the future. Or is there a policy prescription that comes out of this? It seems obvious that one should respect other people's religion, views, gender, race, etc., but at the same time keep a level head about facts on the ground, and not allow political correctness to hijack rational decision making.

What really blows my mind is this was the army that ignored these things. I can more understand it in the general workplace (still wrong mind you but I "get it") ...but the army?

GMTom wrote:What really blows my mind is this was the army that ignored these things. I can more understand it in the general workplace (still wrong mind you but I "get it") ...but the army?

The problem is, and maybe others with more recent experience can comment, that passing someone over for promotion requires a lot of justification. It's a career-ender. It's far easier to ignore problems than address them.

Combine that with political correctness, the embarrassment of Abu Ghraib, and a desire to not be seen as "at war with Islam," and I think you have a real desire to avoid dealing with Hasan. "Someone else" will do it. I saw it a lot in my former occupation.

Is it 'political correctness', or the fear of it that is the real problem though?

At least you see that Americans doing bad things (Abu Ghraib) has repercussions.

danivon wrote:Is it 'political correctness', or the fear of it that is the real problem though?

Both. Some people actually believe that stuff--even in the military and certainly in the civilian oversight of it.

At least you see that Americans doing bad things (Abu Ghraib) has repercussions.

No news flash there. I see some Americans (the ones who generally agree with you) doing a lot of "bad things."

No-one I 'agree with' indulges in torture. Or defends it.

danivon wrote:No-one I 'agree with' indulges in torture. Or defends it.

Me either.

However, the ones who typically agree with you are involved in massive government waste, raising of energy prices by suppressing supply and increasing regulation of it, and generally curtailing individual liberty. I view those as "bad things."

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:No-one I 'agree with' indulges in torture. Or defends it.

Me either.

However, the ones who typically agree with you are involved in massive government waste, raising of energy prices by suppressing supply and increasing regulation of it, and generally curtailing individual liberty. I view those as "bad things."

Don't forget all the stuff government regulates and spends money on you agree with !

doctor fate

the ultimate problem was an unwillingness to recognize a threat and take appropriate action.

Interesting statement. I agree with it in Hassans case.
But isn't it also true in regards to the other 25,580 guns deaths annually in the US?
Or are threats only recognized as individuals acts?
If there was an identifiable disease filling 500 people a week, wouldn't you want there to be appropriate action to mitigate the results?
Hassan got his guns and ammo off base. The US military has very effective gun control because past events like Hassan caused them to enact tough gun control measures. Even though Hassan was identifiably unhinged, nothing prevented him from buying his guns. Lets say he had to wait 48 hours for his guns and his employer had to be informed of his purchase...think they might have acted then?

rickyp wrote:doctor fate

the ultimate problem was an unwillingness to recognize a threat and take appropriate action.

If there was an identifiable disease filling 500 people a week, wouldn't you want there to be appropriate action to mitigate the results?

Where was the sexually transmitted vector of AIDS in the beginning? Are you saying that the homosexual vector is something that you would legislate, considering people were dying? Certainly you would not say that homosexuality is a crime.

green

Where was the sexually transmitted vector of AIDS in the beginning? Are you saying that the homosexual vector is something that you would legislate, considering people were dying? Certainly you would not say that homosexuality is a crime.

Legislate? Crime? Appropriate actions in combatting aids include: preaching the wearing of condoms and sexual fidelity.
And funding research on creating a vaccine and therapies to aid those who've been infected. Homosexuals and hetereosexuals alike.

rickyp wrote:doctor fate

the ultimate problem was an unwillingness to recognize a threat and take appropriate action.

Interesting statement. I agree with it in Hassans case.
But isn't it also true in regards to the other 25,580 guns deaths annually in the US?

Thus proving what? More people die from automobile crashes than from guns. Drug overdoses outnumber gun deaths--and drugs are illegal.

If you want to debate gun control, start your own thread.

You have no way of knowing if the strictest possible gun control would have prevented Hasan's actions. Given his obvious disregard for his own life, who can say he would not have strapped a bomb on?

Hassan got his guns and ammo off base.

Insightful. So do many Americans who never kill anyone or shoot at anyone. The vast majority of said Americans are not Islamists.

Was it his ideology or the gun that led Hasan to commit murder? Was he completely neutral on the matter until he held the cold steel in his hands? Was that the moment of homicidal conversion (when he crossed from believing all human life was valuable to thinking the dhimmi could be slaughtered)? Or, was it something from his religion?

The US military has very effective gun control because past events like Hassan caused them to enact tough gun control measures.

Really? When I served we had "gun control" and I don't know of a single terrorist attack by a serving officer in the US Army against fellow soldiers on American soil before that. I think there are many reasons the Army has armories and does not issue 45's and M-16's on a permanent basis. Think about it: do those who serve in tanks drive them home?

Time and place. Time and place.

Even though Hassan was identifiably unhinged, nothing prevented him from buying his guns.

This goes beyond banal into imbecility. The guy was getting PROMOTED by the Army and you marvel that he could buy a weapon?

It is fascinating how you are able to completely ignore his motivation.

Lets say he had to wait 48 hours for his guns and his employer had to be informed of his purchase...think they might have acted then?

Nope. What evidence or testimony do you have to suggest they would have? Everything points to one cold, stark reality: Hasan's superiors played "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" with regard to his activities, beliefs and statements. It was only in retrospect that the alarm bells went off because no one wanted to be the one to say, "Gee, I don't know, but this Hasan fellow seems to have a world view more in line with Osama Bin Laden than an Army officer should." Why? Because accusations of racism and Islamophobia would inevitably follow.

That is the issue, not the number of gun deaths in the US.

It was said way back when, but it bears repeating: if everyone Hasan shot had been armed, he would not have been able to kill so many. Gun control was the problem, not the answer. Given Hasan's motivation, do you imagine he would have been unable to obtain a gun illegally? If you believe that, you'll believe just about anything.

rickyp wrote:green

Where was the sexually transmitted vector of AIDS in the beginning? Are you saying that the homosexual vector is something that you would legislate, considering people were dying? Certainly you would not say that homosexuality is a crime.

Legislate? Crime? Appropriate actions in combatting aids include: preaching the wearing of condoms and sexual fidelity.
And funding research on creating a vaccine and therapies to aid those who've been infected. Homosexuals and hetereosexuals alike.

I hope you understand what I am saying. Weapons are dangerous. So are relationships. People can die with misused weapons. People can die with misused relationships. Weapons are legal and require a minimum of legislation. Relationships are legal and require a minimum of legislation. People who use weapons or relationships criminally should be punished.

People who do not used weapons or relationships improperly should be left alone from the government.

GA - relationships are not designed to kill or maim. Weapons are.