The picture that emerges of Major Nidal Hasan is of an obnoxious, provocative, and disloyal gadfly. He showed little respect for the uniform, his peers, or the rights and wrongs of the war on terrorism after the 9/11 attacks. His deranged criticisms were absorbed by the politically correct and risk-adverse culture of today’s military. Consider this nonsense from the Army Chief of Staff, General Casey: “Our diversity not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”
Worse? Worse than 15 dead and 28 wounded? Worse than an institution whose deracinated soldiers were well trained to know that raising an objection to someone like Hasan could be “racist” and thus the end of one’s career?
People outside the military don’t realize quite how much the h.r. nonsense we’re all accustomed to in academic and civilian life has become the lingua franca of the military since the Clinton’s administration, the Tailhook scandal, and the unnatural integration of women into combat-like roles.
We are fighting a war against radical Muslims, but no one is allowed to notice this inconvenient fact, even inside the military. Today’s p.c. soldiers are supposed to train indifferent Iraqis and Afghanis, police these crummy countries’ sectarian elections, brook their proteges’ constant whining about civilian casualties (even though their own internecine struggles are positively Satanic in comparison), and ignore the fifth columnists in their midst like Sgt. John Muhammad (DC Sniper), Sgt. Akbar (who fragged his fellow soldiers), and now Major Nidal Hasan.
Neither Bush, nor Obama, nor most of the leadership at Ft. Hood takes note of the fact we have a self-professed Islamic enemy. And that some of these enemies were born here, wear our army’s uniform, and have conflicted views about the country the rest of us love. Instead, these manifest facts are dutifully suppressed by the ideology of diversity.
I think the media’s and other elites’ refusal to look at the content of Islamic beliefs, the relative lack of patriotism of the American Muslim community, and the way this community and the broader American community talk past each other is a problem. Non-Muslim Americans wrongly assume Muslims want to be treated fairly as equals. Some do and would be content with that. But Muslims on the whole see themselves as an elect, a superior community that needs to be treated deferentially. This is the meaning of the Danish cartoon riots, the pushy suppression of dissent under the rubric of “hate speech,” and the double standards on accidental civilian deaths by western forces on the one hand (unintentional but worse in their eyes because committed by infidels) and the nearly daily and far more deadly bombings and killings of Muslims by other Muslims in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Their idea of “due respect” is anathema to a democratic society built on tolerance and Christian ideas of freedom and conscience, whether in Europe or the United States.
Channeling Aleander Kojeve, Francis Fukuyama in the End of History noted that the animating principle of democratic societies is the abandonment of the earlier “warrior aristocracy” ethic, whereby one group in the community demanded recognition as superior because of its physical courage, in favor of the more limited respect between each stratum of society merely as an equal to the others. This practical equality of self-perception and social demand by different cohorts in our own society has a lot to do with our vital and relatively strong traditions of self government and peaceful social life.
Fukuyama to his credit more recently noted that, “Democracy’s only real competitor in the realm of ideas today is radical Islamism. . . . Some disenfranchised Muslims thrill to the rantings of Osama bin Laden or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but the appeal of this kind of medieval Islamism is strictly limited.”
This is all to say that the Nidal Hasans of the world are not an existential threat, particularly to the United States. At the same time, they–and by “they” I mean Muslims in America in general–should not be considered presumptively loyal. They should prove themselves. Every other immigrant group has done so, usually in the uniform and with the sacrifice of blood. But unlike the Japanese and immigrant Italian and German Americans in World War II, Muslims have largely been MIA from the War on Terror and have shown a lack of moral clarity regarding the same.
Is it too much to ask a little expression of anger that anyone anywhere thinks like this bastard, Hasan? Can we not say, roughly, “Love it or leave it.” If they insult us, show discomfort with the uniform, express sympathy for Islamic terrorists, or otherwise threaten the military and its need for uniformity, Muslims and anyone else who thinks like this should be shown the door. In other words, while we should not abuse loyal and peaceful citizens, we should be profiling. We should be demanding displays of loyalty. And we should be kicking out bad guys like this from the military and from the country before they do us any harm. Diversity is hardly important and its loss is not a greater tragedy than the loss of life from some of our best Americans at the hands of someone who was only here because of a misguided and reversible immigration policy.
Subscribe To This Feed
