Mastermind

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

My question is directed toward future prevention, not the execution of the Hasan case. There seems to be a consensus here that somebody dropped the ball in allowing this man to do what he did. In what way can a similar event be prevented if a soldier/officer shows no signs, other than strong Jihadist tendencies, that he will turn on his comrades?

It may be helpful to define "strong jihadist tendencies."

Muslims often have a strong religious unity that can appear (often falsely) to transcend nationalistic lines. I don't think it's abnormal at all for a devout Muslim to contemplate the impact to their actions if they were sanctioning the killing of other Muslims against the perceived unified threat (as seen from, we'll call it Islamic conventional wisdom).

Certainly, there's the appearance among much of Islam globally that the West is engaged in a war to destroy (or at least hurt) Islam...as a faith.

This is why Saddam was looked at with reverence (he stood up to the West) and why Bin Laden gets a pass from otherwise moderates who believe that while his tactics are ugly he is standing up for the rights of Muslims less fortunate.

Granted, not all Muslims would agree with this, and many Islamic nations and people don't have a great track record respecting the rights of their fellow Muslims.

And also, a very large number of Muslims appear to either "get it" or simply don't think any of this nonsense justifies violence. It's worth noting that the vast majority of the World's Muslims are totally non-violent.

So where do you draw the line? Certainly acting out with violence to "protect the faith" is well past it, but what about peaceful opposition, protest or condemning language?

Or if one explored the meaning of violent actions (like Hasan's jumping on a grenade comment) without actually calling for or explicitly condoning violence?

Is attending a mosque where radical preachers are know to oppose the US a warning sign or just an exercise of free speech?

Would the same standards be applied to a Catholic who's pastor flirted with violence against abortion clinics in their sermons?

Would these be offending "jihadist tendencies" for a US citizen?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

It may be helpful to define "strong jihadist tendencies."



Would these be offending "jihadist tendencies" for a US citizen?

-spence

I'm pretty sure the rules change a bit when you become a member of the military, he referred to soldiers/officers...

why don't we ask Napolitano, she seems to have outlined in detail "strong right wing extremist tendencies"...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I'm pretty sure the rules change a bit when you become a member of the military, he referred to soldiers/officers...

So there's an incompatibility between Islam and US Military service?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So there's an incompatibility between Islam and US Military service?

-spence

There is certainly an incompatibility between radical, jihadist (the little jihad--holy war against the infidel stuff) Islam and the US Military. There is certainly an incompatibility between Shariah law and US law. There is certainly an incompatibility between honor killing and US law. (I know, I know, that's not true Islam. Just an extremist quirk . . . like all those other little quirks, the treatment of women, or non-Muslims, . . .)

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There is certainly an incompatibility between radical, jihadist (the little jihad--holy war against the infidel stuff) Islam and the US Military. There is certainly an incompatibility between Shariah law and US law. There is certainly an incompatibility between honor killing and US law. (I know, I know, that's not true Islam. Just an extremist quirk . . . like all those other little quirks, the treatment of women, or non-Muslims, . . .)

I would think you could say the same thing about nearly any extremist behavior.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I would think you could say the same thing about nearly any extremist behavior.

-spence

I was not referring to extremist behavior, but to your question"So there's an incompatability between Islam and US military?" And I specifically mentioned Holy War Jihadism and a couple of "quirks" in Islamic belief that are incompatible with US law.

I would not say that nearly any extremist behavior is incompatible with US law. So long as that behavior is not unconstitutional nor breaks any legal codes, I think we are garantied a right to it.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It may be helpful to define "strong jihadist tendencies."

Strong: emphatic, extreme, having force of conviction or feeling.

Jihadist: (in this context) a Muslim who favors or supports the Jihad.

Tendency: a demonstrated inclination to think, act, or behave in a certain way.

Muslims often have a strong religious unity that can appear (often falsely) to transcend nationalistic lines. I don't think it's abnormal at all for a devout Muslim to contemplate the impact to their actions if they were sanctioning the killing of other Muslims against the perceived unified threat (as seen from, we'll call it Islamic conventional wisdom).

I don't understand the above paragraph.

Certainly, there's the appearance among much of Islam globally that the West is engaged in a war to destroy (or at least hurt) Islam...as a faith.

Yes, I agree that appearance exists and believe that it has willfully been implanted by Islamist extremists many of whom want Jihad against the West.

This is why Saddam was looked at with reverence (he stood up to the West) and why Bin Laden gets a pass from otherwise moderates who believe that while his tactics are ugly he is standing up for the rights of Muslims less fortunate.

Did those Muslims that suffered Saddam's torture, humiliation, and his murder of their kith and kin look at him with reverence? Or did Muslims that favored Jihad against the West propogandize and convert others to this reverence?

Granted, not all Muslims would agree with this, and many Islamic nations and people don't have a great track record respecting the rights of their fellow Muslims.

And most Islamic nations have an even less than not great track record of respecting the rights of non-Muslims. And are encouraged by Jihadists to act on that less than not great respect for non-Muslims.

And also, a very large number of Muslims appear to either "get it" or simply don't think any of this nonsense justifies violence. It's worth noting that the vast majority of the World's Muslims are totally non-violent.

For the time being--but the Jihadists are working on that. And also, the vast majority of the World's Muslims are not in the U.S. military.

So where do you draw the line? Certainly acting out with violence to "protect the faith" is well past it, but what about peaceful opposition, protest or condemning language?

That's kind of my question.


Would the same standards be applied to a Catholic who's pastor flirted with violence against abortion clinics in their sermons?

Have we had any Catholic Jihadists in the recent past? Is there some cause for fear of the radical Catholics?

Would these be offending "jihadist tendencies" for a US citizen?
-spence

Perhap's, if he were a Muslim.

So, what is the answer to my question: In what way can a similar event (the Hasan incident) be prevented if a soldier/officer shows no signs (other than strong Jihadist tendencies) that he will turn on his comrades? I gather by your equating Islam to other religions, that the perpetrators and professors of radical Islamist's contemporary and actual "terrorist" activities are to be perceived as no more of a present danger than the possible, equivalent actions of the extremists within other religions. That free speech (even seditious, treasonous speech) is to be protected in the military. I gather, then, by your lengthy answer, that there is nothing that can be done. Just wait for the next incident and prosecute it as a mass murder. Of course, that is not prevention.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, what is the answer to my question: In what way can a similar event (the Hasan incident) be prevented if a soldier/officer shows no signs (other than strong Jihadist tendencies) that he will turn on his comrades? I gather by your equating Islam to other religions, that the perpetrators and professors of radical Islamist's contemporary and actual "terrorist" activities are to be perceived as no more of a present danger than the possible, equivalent actions of the extremists within other religions. That free speech (even seditious, treasonous speech) is to be protected in the military. I gather, then, by your lengthy answer, that there is nothing that can be done. Just wait for the next incident and prosecute it as a mass murder. Of course, that is not prevention.

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.

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.

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

[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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So we agree that his faith was the decisive factor.

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.

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.

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.

Granted, I have the luxury of hindsight here...but...

-spence

[detbuch]

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.

[scottw]

I think you guys are illustrating perfectly why little or nothing will change and why it will most likely happen again... hiding in plain sight is a brilliant strategy these days....


Dr. Nidal Hasan served on a Presidential Transition task force and helped set national security priorities.
In the proceedings report for the Presidential Transition Task Force entitled, "Thinking Anew -- Security Priorities for the Next (OBAMA) Administration," in APPENDIX C Task Force Event Participants, on page 29, we find the name of Nidal Hasan, Uniformed Services University School of Medicine. This is the same Nidal Hasan, Major, US Army, who murdered and maimed fellow soldiers at Ft Hood. This is the same Nidal Hasan who had been spouting Jihadist rhetoric and defending radical Islam for years without disciplinary action or censure. This is the same Nidal Hasan who communicated with Islamic radicals and was tracked by the FBI.

If he were a member of a militia however, he would have been out. The DOD's security clearance questionnaire asks about militia membership, but not a peep about radical or violent Islamic groups.

I have a number of military families renting in my neighborhood because we live close to the War College....shortly after every military family moves out of the neighborhood, I get a knock on my door and there is an agent standing there with a badge, requesting that I answer questions about the family that has just departed...the questions are remarkably detailed, to a great degree intrusive questions that I could never answer regarding their bank accounts, visitors, behaviours etc...the investigation is much more than thorough and they are looking for ANYTHING that would indicate any kind of suspicious behaviour...it is mind boggling that this guy was allowed to continue through to his ultimate claim to fame...

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

So deteriorating mental health that impacts job function wouldn't be of concern to his leadership? I thought the military actually paid very close attention to this.

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 source of the conflict is irrelevant if it has a negative impact to his duty.

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.

Like most things this falls on a spectrum. I'm sure there are many Muslim soldiers who are conflicted but stay true to their duty to serve. The fanatics obviously would consider them infidels, but it's not necessarily either / or, the right push and you could find yourself on the other side. This looks to be what may have happened to Hasan.

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 difficulty is that to some the Sharia is seen as a highly refined legal and moral system. Hence, no need for any "Enlightenment". To the many Muslims detached from the mainstream, this may appear to provide more comfort. Just like how people will send their kids to a Madrassa as it's the only place to get an "education".

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.

Speaking of good and bad, there's a pretty interesting read called "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim."

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.

Definitely agree that reform needs to come from the inside, but I'm not so sure change is just a matter of free will. In fact a lot of Western behavior works against the very people who might seek reform.

Perhaps we should start dropping Ayn Rand books instead of bombs

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.

The military is a regimented organization, and I'd be surprised, if what was starting to look like a clear dereliction of duty, wouldn't be cause for his removal from service.

Again regarding PC, he was promoted despite his performance simply because of a need for more psychiatrists. This would seems to trump any simple speculation that they were afraid of confronting a religious issue.

I do think some heads will roll once this is investigated.

-spence