Military brass wallow in 'diversity' fetish that caused Fort Hood tragedy and betrayed our troops

The Examiner ^ | November 11, 2009 | Hans Bader

[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).

[BuffaloJack]

Diversity and Political Correctness are the weapons of socialism that will destroy our country

[Prokopton]

However, a Senate and House investigation, together with DOD and independent investigations might get to the root of this.

A Dem controlled PC House and a Dem controlled PC Senate and a Dem controlled PC DOD will expend their energies on a cover-up, not on getting to the truth. It will be worse than the 911 Commission. Independent investigations will be denied access to relevant information. Maybe Sandy the Burglar will be called in if someone gets too close to the truth.

The truth is not the friend of our government, including the present military.

[astounded]

Anyone know who promoted General Casey to his rank? Did he serve in combat in SEA?

[K-oneTexas]

I would agree we are fighting an ideology.

However, ‘The Global War on Terrorism Service Medal’ is the one I received.

It is a way to describe what we are doing. The War on Terror dowes not to me sound like we are fighting the IRA or the Basques. That to me is an utterly ridiculous statement.

My statement is true. We are not allowed to call our enemy by name. They are terrorists. They are radical Islamic Terrorists.

Our own Department of Homeland Security has determined that rightwing, anti-abortion activists, returning Vets and others as ‘domestic terrorists’. Even Christians.

But foreign terrorist can not be called by that name, a name that they are.

We study the ideology and the jihadists mind and methods in order to counteract and defeat them.

Terrorist is a good word. It has meaning and that does not change. It is a war on terrorism.

A war against jihadists or any others that threaten us or any free peoples and those wanting to be free. It is a term with meaning (decades of meaning) to reflect on a wide varity of threats worldwide.

Obama decided words have different meanings than they always have in the Primaries and now. Clinton did the same. To many Americans have fallen for this and I’m afraid you have been bamboozled into changing the meaning of words also.

[Delacon]

“It may take a military person to answer this question, but is there an anonymous process through which military personnel could have reported Hasan’s comments”?

Its already out that Hasan was brought to the attention of the military leadership. That means normal right thinking soldiers and officers told their superiors that this guy was a threat. Its not an issue of whether or not soldiers were afraid to report Hasan, its an issue about how the administration failed to listen. Red flags popped up all over the place, and if no one had the guts to report them, we wouldn’t know about them now.

[pepperdog]

Unfortunately your assessment of the current crop of Generals appears to be right on. Real tough men make our fearless leaders nervous, so the mild mannered, easily controlled are promoted. I doubt there is a Geo. Patton type in the whole of the US military, anyone like that was probably discharged at the first show of aggressive behavior toward an enemy.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"politically-correct obsession with "diversity" "

This is affecting virtually every major institution in this country. Ruining them. Diversity over being qualified (or even sane in this case).

[SJSAMPLE]

I agree, which is why I re-read and added “independent investigations”. Our current one-party islam-appeasing government can not be trusted. Your example of the 9/11 commission was spot on. People who helped cause that disaster were sitting on the panel.

[Dick Bachert]

STARTING WITH CASEY!!!

Political Correctness:

”A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

By spreading this definition around, perhaps we can employ one of the more effective methods of deflating and defeating the fools who practice and promote it: RIDICULE.

Unless stopped – and soon – PC will DESTROY Western Civilization -- if it hasn’t already.

PASS IT ON!!

THEN PASS THE KOOL AID!!

[devistate one four]

Twice the fbi has shafted the USA.

Maybe we should privatize the fbi.

[Irisshlass]

Our soldiers won’t shoot us..officers are a different breed...they are highly political.

[Travis McGee]

PC Kills.

[LeonardFMason]

14 soldiers are slaughtered, many shot in the back, and General “Douche Bag” Casey says “a GREATER TRAGEDY than THIS”(THIS being the cold-blooded murder of 14 soldiers)would be damage to the “DIVERSITY” of the military!!!!!

Imagine the comfort this sentiment brings the victims families.

Hey General Casey! How many soldiers would have to be slaughtered before the loss of “diversity” wouldn’t be a greater tragedy. 140 dead soldiers? 1400 dead soldiers? 14,000 dead soldiers? How many dead soldiers equal the value you place on diversity?

Military families everywhere need to demand that Casey be removed. He is UNWORTHY of command. He should retire and become a military “expert” for MSNBC.

[Don Corleone]

And you guys wonder if “our” soldiers will shoot us when the crackdown comes.

I'd worry more if I was one of those senior officers who are betraying their sworn duties! IMHO.

[j_tull]

career officers know that their career is _over_ if they get involved in something that is viewed as non-PC.

Just ask LTG William Boykin about that.

[votemout]

Agreed, and I think it’s finally becoming painfully obvious to a majority of the country. I wonder how many terrorist attacks we can take under this administration until there’s a major revolt.

[Delacon]

You have my highest regard for your service and you honors but I still disagree. I think we are basically on the same page but have a semantics issue. See if you will agree with me on this. We aren’t in a “global war on terrorism” as your medal is pc titled. No offense to you at all, I am sure your actions were brave and honorable but you actions werent shouldn’t have be honored fighting terrorists across the globe, but fighting a specific group that uses terrorism. Our war is with that group, not global terrorism or terrorists across the globe. War goes on globally all the time. That doesn’t mean if you are in one war, you are in them all does it? So you havent been fighting nor got awarded a medal because of your fight against all kinds of terrorists. The war is a war of ideology and, true, part of the war is being fought against terrorist methods. But the war is also against the non terrorism sort. Its in how foreign affairs are conducted based on how each foreign country uses their religion(or fear of other countries religions) as a bargaining chip. Its in the war of ideas. Its in politics as militant muslims move to have sharia laws passed and observed in our own country. Its in our culture that now demands that we allow, abide, and ignore actions of those who are violently opposed to our way of life. You should have gotten the CIB. You would have been just as deserving but it would have been stripped of all the pc crap. Because honestly to me ‘The Global War on Terrorism Service Medal’ shouts “The ‘We Are Not Allowed To Say Who We Are Fighting’ Service Medal”. Nothing I’ve said was meant to diminish you service or your honors. Its meant to diminish militant islam. Don’t honor them with the term “global” or allow them to hide by saying terrorism is the only method they use.

[K-oneTexas]

You are falling into the PC trap.

We are not fighting a group. We are not fighting one group, Al Qaeda (AQ). But hundreds of groups and their financial backers.

Terrorist groups are not Nation States they are individuals banded together. They fight for no flag or country. They do fight for ideology (as you said).

When we say terrorism it is a term which embodies all these individuals and entities on one word. When we say terrorism it is a term that embodies their actions in the world at large.

I never said terrorism was the only method they use, you did. FEAR in any and all forms is what they use. Terrorism is a tool yes, but it is a known commodity that can be cited and called by name.

Call it semantics if you like, but realize in playing semantics it allows them to win the battle of the mind ... the mind of their enemy, which is us. Getting their enemy to be confused on exactly who they are and where they are.

Terrorist are local, they are nationwide and they are global. Terrorist come in many forms and shapes and sizes and they fight their war from the shadows. You are giving them the shadows by not calling them terrorists and not calling it a war on/against terror. Also, by allowing our government to raise them up as above ‘name-calling’ and by this action demean our fighting men and women as oppressors for fighting them.

Foreign Affairs is the realm of Nation States and politicians. I would not consider State Department policies, nor the individuals that carry them out, as rightfully fighting terrorism.

Fighting terrorism is rightly the the realm of military professionals.

Your “The ‘We Are Not Allowed To Say Who We Are Fighting’ Service Medal” is exactly what they want. They do not want to be pidgin-holed or called what they are. They want us think of them as nice people and that is the trap when you can not call someone exactly what they are.

No ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’ are words that have had meaning for decades. They have been known to us for over 100 years and we need not allow them to win the battle of semantics ... let alone the battle of our lifetime. The battle against their terrorist activities. The battle against their jihad.

[Delacon]

“PC Kills”.

LOL! Trav I think I am gonna put that on a bumper sticker.

[Delacon]

“PC Kills”.

LOL! Trav I think I am gonna put that on a bumper sticker.