Posted on 11/11/2009 12:13:39 PM PST by Delacon
As we and the Manchester Union-Leader noted earlier, the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hasan, escaped any preventive action because of a politically-correct obsession with "diversity," which made officers reluctant to report Hasan's extremist remarks in favor of terrorism and against non-Muslims, lest they be accused of discrimination or insensitivity.
Some military leaders, catering to liberal Congressional leaders and the Obama Administration, continue to cling tightly to the "diversity" dogma, demanding that those in the military keep silent rather than saying things that might call into question their "diversity" obsession:
"Naval Academy senior commanders decided during the World Series to remove two Midshipmen from the color guard that appeared. What was their offense? The color guard was deemed too white and too male. There was accordingly a push to make the color guard more 'diverse.' Two members of the color guard were removed and replaced by a Pakistani and a woman to achieve the requisite 'diversity.' The Pakistani unfortunately forgot his cap and shoes. He himself had to be replaced at the last minute by one of the two middies removed earlier. The midshipmen have reportedly been ordered not to speak of these events."
Our government's obsession with "diversity" also created the climate in which officers were afraid to report the suspicious behavior of the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal M. Hasan. Although his anti-American, pro-terrorist views were common knowledge, "a fear of appearing discriminatory . . . kept officers from filing a formal written complaint," reports the Associated Press. As a result, he escaped any disciplinary action or review of his fitness.
The Fort Hood shooter had previously said that Muslims should rise up against the military, "repeatedly expressed sympathy for suicide bombers," was pleased by the terrorist murder of an army recruiter, and publicly called for the beheading or burning of non-Muslims, talking "about how if you’re a nonbeliever the Koran says you should have your head cut off, you should have oil poured down your throat, you should be set on fire." But thanks to a politically-correct double standard, nothing was done to remove him from a position where he could harm others.
The lesson of the Fort Hood shootings is that applying politically-correct double standards, rather than treating people equally, can be lethal.
(Intelligence officials knew that Nidal Hasan, the soldier who killed 13 people at Fort Hood, was trying to contact Al Qaeda. He once attended the same mosque as 9/11 terrorists.)
In a desire to curry favor with the liberal Congress that funds it (and the Obama Administration), the military has increasingly adopted politically-correct policies that abandon equal treatment. One example is racial preferences in admissions to the military academies, imposed in the name of “diversity.” (In practice, “diversity” seems to mean crude “racial proportionality”: it is harder for Asians to be admitted to the academies than for whites and Hispanics, and harder for whites and Hispanics to be admitted than for African-Americans. Such preferences are of dubious legality under Supreme Court precedent.)
In this climate of political correctness and double standards, it is understandable that officers were afraid to file complaints about Hasan, for fear that they would incur the wrath of the “diversity” police.
Even now, the Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, denies that the military failed to pick up the obvious warning signs about Hasan, and he is more concerned that the shootings will undermine the army’s commitment to “diversity,” than he is about the tragedy itself. He claims that a backlash against diversity would be an even "worse" tragedy than the one that took place at Fort Hood. He remains wedded to a policy of "zero tolerance" for criticism of "diversity," i.e., double standards. He seems more concerned that “diversity” will become a “casualty” of such shootings than that American soldiers will.
President Obama’s initial response to the tragedy last Thursday was embarrassing, even for some liberal journalists. Obama’s initial remarks about the tragedy came buried in the middle of a speech laced with “wildly disconnected” ramblings about an unrelated topic, starting with a “joking shout-out.” Even the liberal Boston Globe chided the president for a speech lacking in ”empathy” for the victims.
In an absurd display of political correctness, early media reports chose to harp on the false claim that the killer had PTSD (which he didn’t: he never even served overseas) or the unsupported claim that he had been subjected to harassment (support groups for Muslim soldiers say they have received no recent reports of harassment).
The military is complicit in this disaster.
Too many general officers and “careerists” took the guidance and ran with it, hoping that it would either make their careers or save their careers.
At any point in this, ANY OFFICER who know about this turd could have come forward and filed a complaint, which would have led to an investigation.
Quite simply, The Army (My Army) failed to police its own.
I don’t expect a politician or a civilian to show concern for the troops, as they’re often too far removed. But if the Army chief of staff or any other officer failed to act on this, they’ve betrayed their brethren.
IIRC the Clintons did some PC moves with military policy.
In some cases there were issues, and others there weren't, but I always investigated such things as professionally as possible and reported my findings as objectively as possible. This was but one of a number of things over which I submitted my resignation.
This is no longer "non-discrimination" it is political indoctrination. The radical social engineers started by forcing women into FA (forces afloat)/combat and pilot billets and as a result damaged military readiness and effectiveness.
The political reality of not declaring war against Islam is far from accepting seditious people into the military for the sake of political correctness.
They can only sue if the goobermint waives immunity, and that isn’t going to happen.
However, a Senate and House investigation, together with DOD and independent investigations might get to the root of this.
This multicultural diversity pc crap is what kept me from joining the military as a young man over 30 years ago.
I don’t deny that. I was in the military then and just recently retired.
I’m enraged with its use, especially now, against terrorism.
It makes us vulnerable!!
I hope that one bright side of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that they are breeding a whole corp of officers that know, from experience, the realities on the ground and will buck the pc system.
During those years, I encountered a number of EO investigators and trainers.
Curiously, the worst EO “diversity trainter” was a female officer who wasn’t worth a shit when she was in my active duty unit. She was pregnant and non-deployable about 75% of the time whe was on active duty.
I ran into her when I was in the Reserves in 1997 and laughed my ass off. They always pick the worst examples to use as an example for the rest of us.
It goes back to Carter, at least.
And remember the Peace Dividend. Lots of people separated from the military involuntarily.
All you have to do is look who their Commander in Chief is.
Such crap....
I’m sorry that it took the atrocity that was committed at Ft. Hood to wake people up to the presence of political correctness in the military but it has been going on for decades. There are plenty of liberal officers in all branches of the service and it is only their presence and personal leadership that allows these things to happen.
Remember the Tailhook scandal?? In large part it led directly to expansion of the Navy’s “Women at Sea” program that included female sailors being assigned to the flight decks of aircraft carriers and combat aircraft squadrons for the first time.
I was on the USS Eisenhower (CVN-69) in the early 80’s when we were going to have our first operations at sea with females on the flight deck. The Air Boss held Departmental Quarters and told us that if a female sailor were to be walking across the flight deck and about to walk into a propeller, we were free to tackle her to save her life, but if we “touched her tits doing it” we would go straight to the brig.
The flight deck radio “mouse” was rampant with “crack on the flight deck!” calls that cruise...
While there are plenty of women who do serve their Country well, there are plenty more who do not. Many deploy overseas for the first time, find cruising and flight operations not to their liking, and all they need do is find a willing young sperm donor to get a free flight home, leaving a vacant billet at the parent command while they are deployed overseas. It ain’t right, but it happens all the time and has been happening for decades.
PC has many facets.
PC?
Reverse the letters - and we get the grand pubah of PC...Colin Powell- promoted over more deserving peers by Clinton - (remember him, the guy that didn’t graduate from Oxford)?
Despite what the press wrote about Powell, he did nothing except espouse doctrines that sounded good, but meant little or nothing. He did wrap up his career by endorsing probably the biggest limp wristed beta male since Carter.
Sounds familiar, but honestly, all that drivel started to run together after 16+ years. I really learned to tune it out and focus on the mission.
Powell was already way up there when Clinton arrived.
He was promoted ahead of more deserving Major Generals?
“PC is killing us in the war on terror! You can not fight an enemy you can not even call by their rightful name”.
I know you didn’t mean to but you just fell for the grandfather of all pc rhetoric. It isn’t a “war on terror”. Thats like Roosevelt saying we were involved in a war on tanks, planes and ships. Terrorism is a method of destruction that demoralizes an enemy just like tanks. We aren’t at war with a method. “War on Terror” also makes it sound like we are also fighting the IRA, the Basques, and anyone else that uses terrorist methods. We ain’t because they do not pose an immediate threat to our way of life. No, we are fighting a war against islamofascism, radical islamism, and their fellow travelers. We are fighting an ideology and a completely different view on the way of life we want to live just as we did against monarchism, fascism, and communism.
“Diversity fetish” - I like that
I hope you’re right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.