[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think you're mixing issues.

The real breakdown of the military appears (based on what we know today) is that Hasan's private life was inhibiting his ability to perform his job. Given some of the erratic behavior that's been noted, one would think this should have raised the appropriate red flags.

I have to admit that I have not followed any breaking news that talks about new facts about his private life. And the only erratic behavior that I've heard about all was in some way related to his religious views conflicting with his duties.

The degree of radicalization is a legal issue, and Hasan has the same rights of any US citizen. I'm not sure he crossed any legal lines before the shooting in this regard, at least with what we know.

While some assert the Army was blinded by political correctness, they seem to ignore the fact that he was promoted to Major in spite of his poor performance simply because there was a shortage at the time.

Poor performance would certainly speak against promotion, but would not be an indication that he would mass-murder.

I don't think the Army was blinded by political correctness, rather, it was ordered by it. As a society, we have no compunction against speaking out against and even demonizing many views, especially right wing views as being dangerous. We have not only political warnings but media sanctions, including movies and television shows that have overt or subliminal cautions and admonitions that inform us of the dangers and lunacy of militias and the religious right and the mean spiritidness of "extreme" conservatives. This has a suppressive effect, good or bad, depending on your point of view. And one effect is to persuade many away from "extremism." But there seems to be a reluctance to speak out in an equally culturally aggressive manner against the extremism of Islam. Could we not persuade, as a moderate, liberal, centrist society, those in the Islamic community, through the same cultural and media modes, that Holy war Jihadism against the West is an extreme belief that is just as threatening to our civil society as the so-called religious right? If we are to be a unified society of diverse elements, those elements must adhere to a common law. We must as a civil society teach equally against ALL dangerous extremes.

Certainly his action was influenced by his faith, but all religious rage isn't terrorism. With hindsight, the biggest change that could have prevented this event appears to be more judicious management and monitoring of a subordinate.
-spence

So we agree that his faith was the decisive factor. And I agree that terrorism is not an accurate description, which is why I spoke about Jihadist tendency. Other than that, I don't see what judicious management and monitoring could have prevented this unless the military would have been allowed to reject him because of his expressed views on our policies on Iraq and Afghanistan, and the various complaints against his attempt to proselytize those he counseled to Islam.