Gen. Casey: Diversity yes, sanity no

When a man who consorts with domestic-terrorist-murderers can be elected President of the United States, it should come as no surprise that domestic- terrorist-murder would not be acknowledged as such -- and least of all by the media that did so much to help elect the aforementioned domestic-terrorist-murderer-consort President of the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Police_Department_Park_Station_bombing

It strikes me also that it should come as no surprise that nothing at all about Nidal Hasan's ranting and raving should raise sufficient eyebrows with authorities to stop what happened at Fort Hood from taking place -- not when the country could elect as its President a man who never raised an eyebrow in twenty long years listening every Sunday to the Nidal-Hasan-style ranting and raving of his "spiritual mentor" Jeremiah Wright.

Just out of curiosity, are we saying that that "ranting and raving" on behalf of Muslim spirituality out to be a "Get Out of the Army Free card?"

In other words, Nadal got his education paid for by the Army on the understanding that he would perform a certain amount of service in the military. Furthermore, at the time he was recruited to do this service in exchange for his education, he didn't show any signs at all (as far as any of us know) of having pro-Islamist or anti-American tendencies.

So if you do convert to a certain strain of Islam, should that excuse you from your military service? Do we really want to give people that kind of an out?

I received this from a correspondent the day before the Friday attack at Ft. Hood: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091104_counterterrorism_shifting_who_how

It was published on Wednesday. Take note of the first paragraph:

"In the 11th edition of the online magazine Sada al-Malahim (The Echo of Battle), which was released to jihadist Web sites last week, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leader Nasir al-Wahayshi wrote an article that called for jihadists to conduct simple attacks against a variety of targets. The targets included "any tyrant, intelligence den, prince" or "minister" (referring to the governments in the Muslim world like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Yemen), and "any crusaders whenever you find one of them, like at the airports of the crusader Western countries that participate in the wars against Islam, or their living compounds, trains etc.," (an obvious reference to the United States and Europe and Westerners living in Muslim countries)."

By now, the forensic technicians probably know whether Hasan read this online magazine. Would it be too much to say that if he did, he took it as his personal call to action?

Gerard Nadal

And then, how do you tell the difference between people who are seeking a way out due to a genuine change in religion and those who merely want to avoid the inconvenience of a deployment overseas?

Especially if they have managed to serve part of their commitment here in the US (thus having at least part of their tuition forgiven), how do you sort out the genuine converts from those taking advantage of your out?

Geoff,

Watch the funerals this week. That should answer your question. What's the price of a medical school education compared to what happened at Fort Hood?

When officers, OFFICERS, hang out with radical clerics calling for the death of Americans, the downfall of America, the very clerics who fuel the combatants killing our soldiers, then there are terms for that:

Giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Consorting and conspiring with the enemy.

Conduct unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman.

And in very egregious cases, such as this, TREASON.

This is NOT a religion. This is a world-wide death cult that has brought its focus and forces to bear on us. These clerics are different from your average mosque, no? They are the enemy.

Fine, don't muster them out. Let them rot their a$$e$ off in Levenworth. Hang 'em.

But for God's sake, look at Fort Hood. Would you be willing to eat the medical education bills for as many slackers as we had victims? I would. The treasonous slackers should receive the full measure of the UCMJ. Are there no real warriors left in the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

And if memory serves me Geoff, you wore the uniform, did you not?

Jon W.

" But this would contradict the first premise of our society, which is that no one has the right to tell me how the h*** to live my life."

Right. Does that apply to flying planes into buildings filled with innocent people? Or murdering fellow troops?

In the military, one is much less free than civilians. The military has its own code of justice, its own courts. In the military, one is NOT free to feed oneself on enemy propaganda, to denigrate the nation one has sworn an oath to defend, to publicly, as a Major, disagree with the mission and then implement that as a matter of policy when dealing with subordinates.

The "goods" of the military are:

The Constitution
One's Comrades
Duty (which includes fidelity to the oath sworn)
Honor
Country
Courage

The general is not entrusted with the 'national project'. The general is entrusted with the Army, whose job it is to keep the nation safe and free. In that way, the project may continue under the civilian command structure embodied n the three branches of government so ordered by the same Constitution Hasan swore to defend.

The general's respect for diversity is dictated, rather obviously, by the fact that he leads an imperial army fighting an imperial war.

cirdan is right about that.

Rod, I see from your bio that you’re an editorial writer. I don’t know much about your background. Did you ever work in journalism as a just the facts, regular reporter? I can’t imagine that a reporter would quote the people you did and then observe as if you knew for sure, that the problem is Holy Diversity. That phrase itself is jarring, with its tinge of Stuff I Hate in Modern Life. (Do conservatives really need to be saddled with more of that?)

Aside from my aversion to seeing people fixing the facts to fit the policy – that phrase from the Iraq war, what you wrote comes across as way too agenda driven for my taste. Start from a premise – diversity is bad – and make it fit. How is that different from the opposite – diversity is good and make it fit? Why the hurry to label what happened and move along folks, nothing to see here? Why not wait for the results of the investigation instead of eagerly consuming what Steyn or something else is throwing out there? Don’t be so crippled by the need to apply templates that appeal to you personally, wait for more facts and don’t be so eager to tie complicated, messy things up in a neat little package.

I know you’re not in a position to make decisions that affect outcomes – you’re an armchair anaylst, a writer and a blogger – but if you were a manager or a leader having to assess something that affects people, I would urge you to be more careful with data collection and analysis when deciding what is a one-off event and what stems from systemic problems. There’s political advantage to be found there, as well. Conservatism needs more confident spokesmen then it has now. There are too many people out there (the National Review crowd is a good example) whose writing seems driven conceptually by what they are afraid of or what they reflexively dislike, rather than honest, brave analysis of what they see around them. I hope you don’t suffer from the no self-reflection affliction that cripples so many ideologues (the left suffers from it as much as the right). Digging more deeply to understand how these things play out in workplaces (military and civilian) would serve the conservative cause much better than reflexive, agenda driven snarling and snark.

Stari Momak, I don't get what you're saying. You write, "What has happened, since about 1950, is that the government is actually at war with its historic majority population." How could the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama administrations be described as following a policy which set it at war with the majority population? I just don’t see that. The government grapples with many complex problems but regardless of who is in charge, the intent always is to assess risks and to balance competing goals and objectives so as to preserve our strength and protect our nation and our people. There are different governing philosophies and people can disagree strongly as to how to best protect our interests, but the underlying goal is the same. Since they vote for the officials who make up the government, the people are in the mix as well, with all their very human strengths and weaknesses.

Rod, as far as the Hasan case is concerned, as with many other events and crises, I view this as a test for those out of power and outside the government to show that they deserve to be voted back into power. That they can handle ingestion of facts that don’t match an existing world view and the formulation of conclusions about complicated matters that best serve the nation and those who serve it. The facts matter, very much. But you’re weakening Conservatives needlessly on this one because you aren’t taking into account the way blogging can expose weaknesses in data collection and analysis.

In his book, The Right Man, David Frum said of Karen Hughes (who later served as a senior public diplomacy official) that “Hughes rarely read books and distrusted people who did—anything she did not already know she saw no point in knowing.” Don’t use that as your model. Conservatives who shoot from the hip and write from a stance that they already know everything are going to have a hard time in persuading Independents to vote GOP. Read Steyn if he appeals to you (he’s too agenda driven for me) but be open to listening to other perspectives and try to avoid making snap judgments too early in the game. Your instincts may be right or wrong on this one. They won’t be every time, it just doesn’t work that way, unless you think you’re superior to most human beings. So it’s not just finding out what went wrong – we don’t yet know -- it’s also about demonstrating the intellectual process you follow to come to your conclusions that matters. Don’t blow the opportunity, dude. The path back to political power lies in demonstrating conservatives can be trusted as intellectuals, not just in throwing out red meat. There are too many red meat types out there already, why join them? Reach higher, strive for more, don't be so accpeting of a low bar. Shooting from the hip or over applying templates you like isn’t going to do it.

And then, how do you tell the difference between people who are seeking a way out due to a genuine change in religion and those who merely want to avoid the inconvenience of a deployment overseas?

I don't particularly care. Let, as was suggested above by Gerard, those who want out reimburse the government for the cost of medical or otherwise specialized training, and send them on their way with a General Discharge.

From what I've seen reported about Major Hasan, he offered to do this very thing if he could have gotten out of the military. That was not military policy. The result was that Hasan shot up a military base. I suggest that if the US military had let him leave and pay back the money for his education, those 13 dead soldiers would be alive today.

Perhaps this policy should be changed.

If this means that enough people quit the All Volunteer Force that the US has trouble placing troops in foreign nations to intervene and support the sort of political leaders in those foreign nations that we want to see in power - well, maybe the US ought to re-think the costs of running an Empire.

Shoot, might as well start that process now - in ten years we won't have the money or manpower to do it anyway.

STEP 3: Sitting in combat fatigues, front row left in the photo opening Chapter 3 "International Strategy - Re-invigorating our Tole in the World" is my guess. Rather than evangelizing Steyn's secular imperialism, we need to explore what "structures of sin" led a privileged young American, dependent on the state for most of his life (public schooling, military-funded education, with less than one year of actual clinical experience under his belt, relieved -- at enormous taxpayers expense -- of the penury privately-educated citizens submit themselves to in pursuit of similar career goals in the private sector) to perdition in this way?

What concept do our leadership class fail to grasp, when their analysis resorts to "demons" to explain away the extreme voluntarist anti-Hellenism required of devout adherents of Islam that is ipso facto incompatible with the phronesis (prudential judgement, aka free will) of classical philosophy (see Ratzinger's Regensburg address)? Washington Post quotes the Major's superior Col. Kimberly Kesling:

“You would hope you never know someone who would have such a demon.”

The demon that prowls the world seeking the demise of souls devoted to the spirit of truth? A politically incorrect answer perhaps, (if you're a devotee of the American Gnostic Religion) but a valid one if you are an otherwise orthodox Christian. I, like Thomas More, am "the Queen's Good Servant But God's First" and pay my federal, state and local taxes and abide by the subsidiary authorities of positive law (lex humana) in those same jurisdictions and it should alarm no one that I am a dangerous foreigner, because Christian faith is compatible with right reason (natural law). Islamic faith is not (breaking the 8th commandment on bearing false witness in permitted with infidels, ie its ok to lie to non-muslims).

You are right Indy, that was a bit of hyperbole that I regret writing. I would

1) not say government, but would say certain segments of the ever-elusive elite
2) not so much at war with, contemptuous of the wishes and interests (cultural, ethnic, economic) of the historical majority population
3) I would add, much of the elite feels ashamed up the country's history, and is in a propaganda war against that legacy with all its good and ill
3) it must be recognized that of course there are different factions in the elite

What is my evidence? Our immigration policy, affirmative action, the gradual airbrushing of the accomplishments of white Americans out of public school history textbooks, the rush to defend "diversity" at every instance of a crime by a non-majority person against the majority, agency's such as DHS copying word for word propaganda from the SPLC about "right wing" (read, white) militia's, and so on.

In a way the situation is much like that in the old Soviet Union or Yugoslavia. Both countries weren't too found of expressions of national identity, but tolerated them (or tried to contain them, disneyfy them) in the case of minority populations. What the "new class" in both countries really feared any sort of national sentiment developing amongst the majority nation -- Russians and Serbs respectively.

Now, the bargain worked out for a while, especially in (relatively) good economic times and when Russians/Serbs could see themselves as benefiting from the state economically, and in a sense being tacit "owners" of their respective states -- so the majority of these populations were willing to shut up as peripheral peoples demanded this or that national right (our equivalent here would be affirmative action, multiculturalism) . But as the economies failed, as the standard of living stagnated, and as the central group had to make more and more concessions for the sake of 'harmony', they came to see their state wasn't worth it. I think that is going to happen sooner or later in the US.

The pathetic PC robot Casey -- what a perfect spokesperson for a sick society. In any decent society this guy would have been canned before he finished speaking his sentence. It's been said before: PC kills. The blood on the floor at Ft Hood is proof. And sick people like Casey are enablers of this.

Hlvanburen, what you describe could legally happen in the military. Military members do not have the same Constitutional rights as civilians. They are subject to both civil law and military law. Their quarters can be searched without a warrant, they can be banned from attending any public or private venue the military deems necessary, their internet and phone calls over military-owned phone lines are subject to monitoring, they are regularly drug tested, and many have to undergo regular in-depth background checks. They are not free to speak their minds publicly, indeed the first year or so of military life is designed such that you are punished for even giving off an air or tone of disrespect towards your superiors. If THAT doesn't qualify as "thought crimes" I don't know what does.

There are sufficient laws on the books that MAJ Hasan could have been charged before now, for sedition if not mutiny (article 94), contempt toward officials (article 88), and a few others. He'll have multiple counts against him now. Murder, attempted murder, assaulting a commissioned officer, etc etc.

His actions will no doubt set a new precedent for bringing charges against people who support U.S. servicemembers resisting our ongoing operations.

The fact of the matter is, the Army dropped the ball here. This whole situation pains me, the open criticism here of our officers pains me as well, but objective facts are objective facts. There will be a full investigation.

There will probably be an expansion of the "Conscientious Objector" status which the military sometimes grants serving service members who have a true change of heart or conversion towards pacifism. They are normally granted non-combatant duty, like combat medic. Sometimes they are discharged, but this is not common.

But up to this point that status has only been granted in cases where the soldier stated that he could not take up arms and kill, not even in self-defense. CLEARLY MAJ Hasan did not have a problem with killing. Perhaps the policy could be expanded to not being able to take up arms and kill co-religionists even in self defense. But again, this gets tricky.

Besides, a PSYCHIATRIST could by no means be considered a combatant. For this reason, MAJ Hasan's case would have been a difficult one, which is probably why he was counseled there was not much hope. There wasn't. This wasn't ABOUT the money - he could have repaid his education expenses. But he could not have replaced himself with a trained medical professional of his background and education. It would take the Army another 8 years to produce a MAJ Hasan. The Army needs to make its mission happen, regardless of the personal costs that may exact on its people. It's a fact of life. Mission first, last, and always.

In the end, MAJ Hasan's actions, despite the incredible pressures he must have felt, were his own actions, and he is fully responsible for them.

Playing devil's advocate -- the Army has known problems recruiting and retaining while maintaining high standards. Perhaps Nidal Hasan was not dismissed due to diveristy issues, but because the Army needs Psychiatrists (and other key positions) and are willing to tolerate troubled soldiers. From USATdoay, Oct. 9 2009:

According to statistics obtained by The Associated Press, 3.8% of the first-time recruits scored below certain aptitude levels. In previous years, the Army had allowed only 2% of its recruits to have low aptitude scores. That limit was increased last year to 4%, the maximum allowed by the Defense Department...

About 17% of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving. That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said.

Of those accepted under waivers, more than half were for "moral" reasons, mostly misdemeanor arrests. Thirty-eight percent were for medical reasons and 7% were drug and alcohol problems, including those who may have failed a drug test or acknowledged they had used drugs...

About two-thirds of the recruits qualified for a bonus — an average of $11,000 each. Some in highly valued specialties, such as special operations forces, can get up to $40,000 in extra cash.

I'm with R Hampton.

There are people in the military that should not be there. We should not have let them there.

This has nothing to do with diversity. A lot of these people I'm talking about have criminal records or other signs of instability. There have been other cases of soldiers snapping, although this is surely the worse one.

Why do we let them in? Why do we let them stay? The explanation is trivial: We have an all volunteer military fighting a massively unpopular war. (And one other war that is just moderately unpopular.)

And we're not willing to pay them hardly anything, as evidenced by the fact that private contractors are poaching them. (And then leasing them back to us at higher rates, which is perhaps the 'peak stupid' of this country's 'privatization' kick.)

So there is very very sparse pickings for the military. (Which is making DADT more and more surreal.)

If we start removing the people who should not be in the military, we would not have enough of a military to do what we're trying to do with. (Erm, not that we currently do, either.)

Incidentally, the reason we don't let people pay their way out of a military education is that the entire point of such an education is to require their service if we go to war. We don't let people out of the military because they suddenly don't want to fight in a war...you don't get to be a soldier and get paid for being a solider in peacetime, and duck out when we have an actual war.

No, not even if you pay back the 'investment' made training you...because that investment is actually the government purchasing a lottery ticket in you...soldiers in wartime are a lot more valuable than soldiers in peacetime, a lot more valuable than what the soldier 'owes'.

It is like being in a job that pays you $10 an hour to be on call 24/7, and you work that job for a year without being called in...if they suddenly need you, you don't get to resign that second and not go in. Not even if you pay for your training. The whole point of them paying you was to have you ready.

The problem is, most people who join the military assume that if they're 'forced' to fight in a war, it will be an actual important war. Not some war we just randomly decided to have.

Gerard Nadal,
If the Army tightens requirements, then annual enlistments for new recruits will fall short by several thousand with no alternative other than the draft. Knowing this, the Army has loosened requirements and extended the maximum age for new recruits from 35 in 2005 to 42 in 2006. What else can they do?

R Hampton,

If the only choice is between propping up numbers with troops of dubious motive and allegiance and the draft, then the choice is clear. Reinstate the draft.

There was a time in this country when military service was considered a manly right of passage. "But what of the kids going to college?", many will retort. I can honestly say that as a college professor, I would welcome students who have been afforded two years after high school the ability to grow up, to become serious and disciplined. The first two years of study are wasted on a majority of these kids.

Also, the absence of a draft is not a right unto itself. When existential threats arise, the nation retains the right to call upon its citizens, without distinction (the PC crowd ought to applaud that) to go and meet that threat with force of arms.

We ultimately have two options: Winning or Losing.

Our strategy should facilitate whichever we choose. I don't think a good portion of Americans have made that choice yet.

Diversity is great and this nation should be welcoming toward all who want to put their lives on the line for this country but I have to say that those who thought their commendable quest for diversity within the military required them to ignore the very real warning signs spewing out of this particular assailants mouth were dead wrong. Anti-American invectives, and pro-jihadist speech have no place in the armed forces (and no place in a U.S. police force and no place in the judiciary, etc. etc.) This guy should have been reported to the FBI.

It is great that the military is focused on the contributions that patriotic Americans of the Islamic faith can make to our armed forces. There is a simple line that needs to be drawn, and we have seen it for years in relation to all kinds of demographic groups. Thugs will use whatever excuse they have to justify being thugs: Irish thugs blame it on the British hanging their grandfather, Italian thugs blame it on discrimination against their mother or nephew by Anglo-Americans, black thugs blame it on their great grandfather's enslavement, even if they are robbing, raping or murdering an elderly woman their own color who has the same family history, Christian thugs say the Bible told them to do it, and Muslim thugs say they are doing it for Islam. All we need to do is make it clear that while we can do many things to correct past oppression, and guard against mindless prejudice, thugs will be treated as thugs, and demography will not be accepted as an excuse. If the officers responsible for filing reports understand that, and if the would-be thugs understand that, then the problem will be quickly solved. (I suspect CAIR would have a problem with this, but that's too bad. In American, we elect Muslims to congress from Christian-majority districts, and swear them in on a Qu'ran from Thomas Jefferson's library, but we don't allow anyone to be thugs and use Islam as an excuse.)

Bringing back the draft would be a good idea, because people would think twice about being rah-rah for what might have looked like an easy war, knowing their own sons and daughters would be drafted. But, considering the anti-draft agitation provoked by the Vietnam War, where millions of Americans thought our government was wrong to send troops there, perhaps we should have a national referendum which says "Shall we institute universal conscription and declare war, or, shall we do neither?" Vote, yes or no, and then live with the consequences. Rotating a small number of volunteers into a war zone, then back to civilian life, then back to the war zone, then back to civilian life, is a recipe for insanity.