Lessons of the Fort Hood massacre: political correctness can be deadly
As more facts begin to unfold in the circumstances surrounding the massacre at Fort Hood, one conclusion seems inescapable: the Army knew, or should have known, it had in Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a ticking time bomb, yet it chose to look the other way. The murderous spree in which Hasan engaged was entirely preventable, but it occurred nonetheless. As is becoming abundantly clear, the incontrovertible facts surrounding the incident indicate conclusively that the mayhem was a direct result of political correctness run amok, the consequences of which, for this case, proved deadly.
The real tragedy of Fort Hood lies in the extraordinary and absurd lengths to which many members of the media and some of the Army’s top brass, in conformity with the dictates of political correctness and its handmaiden “diversity”, went to avoid acknowledging the painfully obvious: this indiscriminate act of mass execution was the first instance of domestic terrorism since 9/11. Many in our government are perfectly willing to overlook the unblemished facts and conclude, after the murder of twelve of its soldiers, that the real tragedy of the incident is what an analysis of mindless adherence to the mushy doctrine of “diversity” might tellingly reveal.
Any expressions of grief over the carnage that might have escaped from the lips of General George Casey, Jr., the Chief of Staff of the Army, were largely overshadowed by his obscene proclamation that the greater danger would be a reexamination of the government’s cherished policy of diversity. When questioned about the Army’s posture of willful ignorance in light of the prior complaints from fellow officers about Hasan’s expressions of Islamic fanaticism, Casey stated that, “This terrible event would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty.” How comforting these words must be to the families of the twelve slain soldiers.
As soon as the news of the carnage unfolded, members of the media were quick to offer numerous theories for Hasan’s motives, all quite speculative and untethered to reality. His premeditated act was a manifestation of Post Traumatic Stress; his deployment to Afghanistan was the trigger that set in motion the murderous spree. The only problem with this explanation was that Hasan had never seen war nor experienced combat.
The derivative theory offered in its place was equally preposterous. We were told that as an Army psychiatrist, his mere exposure to those soldiers who had suffered the unspeakable (unspecified) experiences of combat was sufficient to send him over the edge. But then why, if this were true, did he utter the cry of Allahu Akbar, “God is great”, as he mowed down his fellow soldiers? And why, if this explanation was even remotely credible, have no other practicing psychiatrists, both civilian and military similarly situated, ever been affected in the same way?
We also learned that prior to arriving at Fort Hood, Hasan gave a lecture in front of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center during which he exclaimed that, “non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.” Yet the institutionalized dictates of political correctness demanded silence on the part of those fellow officers who feared disclosing the incident to superiors for fear that it might expose them to charges of practicing discrimination against a protected minority.
Yet the inflammatory and provocative comments of Hasan fell upon deaf ears. Rigid compliance with the “timetables”, “goals” and quotas promulgated by those who worship at the altar of diversity took precedence. As a member of a protected class, Hasan was in a unique position to reap further rewards of a perverse system that in spite of the numerous instances that demonstrated his eminent unsuitability to serve in the military, instead, actually promoted him.
This incident also illustrates much that is wrong with the preachings of contemporary liberalism: if the facts don’t fit, or might assail the enshrined theory, then the facts must be ignored. But nothing is gained by a confusion of terms. Actual acts of discrimination are not the same as the exercise of diligence and/or vigilance, yet political correctness often conflates the two.
The silver lining in this tragic cloud? Those who are not so enamored of diversity that they are blinded by the unvarnished facts of this case are clamoring for hearings to find out how the gross negligence of the Army led to this catastrophe.