Friday, November 6, 2009

Reality Check on Fort Hood

What do Boston, Seattle, or El Paso have in common with the United States Army? If every single person in any of those cities were in uniform, had sworn allegiance to uphold the constitution, and were trained they would be equivalent in number to that service branch. Looking at the armed forces as a whole, the equivalency would be Philadelphia.

On 6/6/07, we had 1,372,905 people under arms. The Army alone accounted for 510,024 of that number. Thus do we arrive at the comparative numbers. This is out of a population of 300,000,000 declared on that same date. Interestingly, we find the total prison population on the same date to be 1,487.940 and take note that we had more incarcerated than in uniform.

Both categories represent less than .5% of the population. One person in 600 is in service or in prison. May we then conclude that in the one case all are noble defenders of freedom and dedicated law abiding citizens and the other are hardened law breakers with little regard for society? In short, no! In both cases there is no 100% certainty that each individual represents the group. It is certain that although most have rightfully been found guilty of a crime, there are no doubt some who have also been falsely imprisoned. Also it is true that the finest of screening does not always result in a proper sorting of bad apples in the military. If that were the case, we could dispense with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In each circumstance, blanket condemnation or endorsement, is inappropriate.

Veterans of military service constitute a number well in excess of 20 million in the United States. Former prisoners are far less quantifiable but should be reasonably assumed to equal at least half that number or, 10 million.

Overlooked in these boring numbers are those who occupy both categories. It is impossible to assign a number to those individuals who are in the service and yet have a sworn allegiance to a personal agenda. Those who consider the military sacrosanct have either never experienced it or failed to watch either “Mash” or “Sgt. Bilko” on TV. Both had an exaggerated view but not altogether false. This then brings us to the frailty of the ever popular “political correctness.”

If there is anything which can safely be declared an “enemy of the state” it is political correctness. To intentionally mis-label acts and attitudes for fear of offense to some isolated constituency at the sacrifice of truth is unconscionable. The well-documented crimes perpetrated by Major Nidal Malik Hasan suddenly turned from accomplished fact to “alleged” when it was revealed that he had indeed survived the gunshot which brought his rampage to an end. As a survivor, he is now entitled to the benefit of doubt as to his guilt or innocence.

One of his relatives, a cousin, verified his muslim association from birth and denied a late in life conversion. The FBI acknowledges possession of email messages urging retaliation for supposed grievances against his faith. His casual dress clearly identified his relationship with his background.. His deportment with patients is clearly stated in his performance review as lacking the qualifications so desired for advancement among the Army officer corps.

He made no secret of resistance to deployment to Iraq in spite of clear knowledge that his would not be a life-threatening assignment. Yet, through the dictates of political correctness, we are constrained to not say the obvious: the man has committed a ghastly criminal act in the name of islam. He is, like many of his brethren, a religious fanatic with pure evil intent. Portraying this individual as a “victim” of any shape or form should be a crime and dealt with accordingly. The method of his slaughter also represents the cowardice so typical in that part of the world he finds so attractive. He intentionally and with prior knowledge selected victims who were unarmed, innocent of personal offense to him, and extremely easy targets.

This episode will, without a doubt, reverberate throughout the command structure and affect a large number of officers involved in the furtherance of his career in the military. This is as it should be. He gamed the system to achieve an education and profession which most Americans can only dream of. Thereupon he repaid this generous contract with hate and hurt for uncounted slain and injured citizens. The defense of this vile being will become a cottage industry for defense lawyers and advocacy groups to seek “justice.” All of this could have been avoided if only our society were encouraged to speak the truth and clearly identify threats both foreign and domestic in advance of such terror. God help us all.

In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon

1 comment:

Donald Borsch Jr. said...

I agree in regard to us as Americans being reticent or afraid to call things what they really are due to possibly offending someone's religion.

I'm not an expert on Islam, nor do I wish to understand it so I can "empathize" with their mentality. As an American who strongly endorses Freedom of Religion as provided by our magnificent Constitution, I know I tread on shaky ground when I say that Muslims should be left alone on American soil to pursue their faith while also believing that their faith has brought nothing but terror in my lifetime.

I suppose I am just being what some may say is double-minded, but I cannot be otherwise here.

I have oft wondered if Freedom of Religion should exclude any religion that brings with it an obvious lack of respect for anyone outside of said religion. I have oft wondered if certain religions, while here on American soil, do not simply exploit our Constitution in that regard.

The argument is easy: "If you say you endorse Freedom of Religion, but look with suspicious eyes upon a religion that is not your own, you are a hypocrite. No one religion can be allowed to dominate America. To conduct yourselves as such, you only come across as hypocrites." I've heard that one several times, unfortunately.

I cannot speak for all Americans and would never seek to do so. I do endorse Freedom of Religion, but it is time I drew a line in the sand when it comes to the needs and safety of the many as opposed to the religious freedom of the few. No more walking on shaky ground.

In the light of this, I will now go on record as saying that I firmly believe Islam is a threat to America, and its adherents or followers, be they cultural or voluntary, should be treated with caution and alertness.

Until the Muslim community comes out and condemns the actions of these Islamic extremists beyond saying, "They do not represent Islam as a whole", then let Muslims on American soil tread carefully.

Much like I believe in Freedom of Speech but know it is illegal to publicly threaten the life of another person, I endorse Freedom of Religion until it threatens the lives of any Americans.

Guess what? Islam has, on repeated occasions, threatened American lives and has even taken American lives. Need I say more?

Long Live the Republic.