Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Not necessarily. I believe he suffered a mental breakdown over his inability to resolve the internal conflict. Faith certainly was a major influence though as it was the source of the conflict. All other Muslim soldiers don't seem to have this problem. Perhaps he had some latent issues that were brought to the surface.
I think his leadership could (hindsight here, right) have seen him as a potential issue because of his behavior in context of his job. This might have led to deeper exploration to reveal his real issues which could have had him removed from his duties.
-spence
|
Long distance psycho-analysis based on unsupported conjecture is worse than useless and can be used to suppose any motives we wish. If we are going to discuss this (perhaps as amateurs who only "know" the tip of the iceberg, we shouldn't discuss it, but that would be boring) we must, in our best Sherlock Holmes/Joe Friday imitation, just examine what little facts we "know."
His Leadership could have seen his relative incompetence as a reason for demotion but not as a threat to go Jihadist on the guys. Deeper exploration into his incompetence would seem a bit extreme and not only expend inordinate hours of analysis over a simple, obvious trait, but would, ipso facto, be cause for such useless analysis of many thousand other less than highly competent personnel.
The only other issues that I'm aware of are the conflict between his religious views and his military duties. I don't think that those conflicts are a cause for psycho-analysis unless one is to believe that religious views, per se, are psychotic. The fact that "all" other . . . (I'm sure the "all" is just an exageration as there have been other such "incidents" in the military) . . . the fact that many other Muslim soldiers don't seem to have "this" problem may, and I hope it's so, is that they are of a reformed view of Islam. The Holy War Jihadist, I believe, is a throwback view that is in dire need of reformation, as was Christianaity centuries ago. To be a partner with the rest of the world rather than a master, the "convert or die" mentality, along with many other rules, customs, and beliefs of Islam need reformation.
The "bad" Muslims--those that more loosely follow their faith like their counter-part Christians and Jews, are the "good" citizens and soldiers. The really "good" Muslims, of the fundamentalist persuasion, see the rest of the world as not just a threat, but an underclass that,
at best, is merely allowed to exist, or worse.
I believe the reformation needs to, quickly, come from within the faith, and little perfunctory "condemnations" of radical Islamist violence is not going to do it. It is a faith that is very susceptible to crackdown from the higher-ups. They could could change this so-called minority behavior in a nano-second,
if they truly wished to do so.
Would the military be allowed to deeply explore such issues with Hasan? Again, the only other "facts" that I'm aware of in this case that might, in any way, indicate what he was about to do, stem from his conflict between his faith and his military duty (not to mention how that faith, as he viewed it, would impact his view of American culture and law--not enough facts to conjecture). And if the military were allowed to explore his inner conflict, could they find cause to remove him. I think there would be, dare I say, a politically correct objection to that.