Jumping to Conculsions

In remarks following the tragic events at Fort Hood, President Obama warned us not to “jump to conclusions.” Disregarding his words, many of us did, and it appears that we were not incorrect in our assumptions about the perpetrator.

But in the first days following the murderous events in Texas, many in the MSM, intent on perpetuating the politically correct mime that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a stressed out man who became unhinged, tried mightily to avoid the conclusion that the US army had failed to recognize the presence of an officer with a clear and persistent Jihadist philosophy. They still won't directly address the reasons why that happened.

Debra Saunders comments:

It's astonishing how people have used their political beliefs to recast this murderous rampage to reflect their politics. New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, for example, wrote a column Saturday that focused on the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder suffered by troops who have served three or four tours of duty -- unbothered by the fact that Hasan never served in a war zone.

Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, went on the Sunday television shows to warn against jumping to conclusions on this case. That's his job; he must work to prevent a backlash against Muslims serving their country in the military, often at great personal sacrifice. Let me add that to view all Muslim troops as suspect -- or otherwise attempt to isolate them -- would be to reward Hasan's attack.

That said, soldiers reported hearing Hasan proclaim "Allahu Akbar" -- God is Great -- as he opened fire. The Associated Press has reported that law enforcement had investigated whether he posted pro-suicide-bombing statements online. According to news reports, former co-workers from Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington complained that he would not allow his photograph to be taken with women for group holiday pictures. On Monday, the Washington Post reported on Hasan's association with a Yemeni al-Qaida promoter who hailed Hasan as "a hero" and a "man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people."

How could the army have missed these warning signs and not acted against this man? I’ll risk jumping to another conclusion. The fact that Hasan was not separated from the army had more to do with political correctness than a lack of clear and persistent warning signs. Senior officers didn’t want to be accused of “profiling” or “harassing” a Moslem officer. Colleagues didn’t want to be accused of “racism” or “insensitivity.”

They all bowed to the gods of political correctness and as a consequence, stepped through the looking glass—a politically correct place where threats are perceived as “justifiable anger,” where seditious statements are disregarded as “research” or “venting,” where incompetence must be weighed against culturally approved imperatives rather than clearly defined criteria.

Our military is not an appropriate place for the “through the looking glass” world of political correctness. In fact, if we learn anything from the tragic events at Fort Hood, it might be that people who want to do us harm use political correctness as a weapon (think: the flying Imams, among many similar cases). They need to be disarmed.