Does Ft. Hood Have a Meaning?

But the Ft. Hood shooting can only be said to be more akin to the OK City bombing than like Columbine if the shooter intended his crime as a political act. That's the real difference between an even like the Murrah attack and Columbine or Virginia Tech. If this is just a guy who flipped and shot up the place, then it really won't "mean" anything.

One thing Ft. Hood does mean is that the military itself is kind of nuts. The Army requires soldiers stateside to wear camo battle dress almost all the time, rather than more functional and comfortable civilian-style dress uniforms, in the name of instilling an "always-ready" esprit de corps. But at the same time that it requires soldiers doing office work at U.S. bases to wear combat fatigues, the Army generally prevent its stateside soldiers from carrying sidearms. So the stateside Army is dressed for battle and armed for teatime. The reverse would seem to be the rational policy.

I feel like I'm missing something here. What *was* the broader meaning of Oswald, or the OK city bombing? I understand how Oswald's history was relevant to why he murdered JFK, but I don't see how it was relevant to anything about the US as a whole. Were we allowing too many people to travel to the USSR? Did it signal that communist sympathizers were about to rise up and commit violence everywhere? I feel dumb but I can't read anything into Oswald that actually looks like a real sign of those times

"And while the are are many things we don't yet--and may never--know about Nidal Malik Hasan and what drove him to commit such an evil act, we can't ignore the things we do know. If only because, by ignoring them, we allow others, like Malkin and her ilk, to try to define them for us."

Oh, well that's all right, then. By all means let's rush to judgement, because otherwise someone else will get there first.

The simple fact is that Fallows will turn out to be a lot closer to the truth of this than Zengerle. It is always tempting to conclude that correlations imply causation, and that an utterly random event is in fact loaded with deep significance. But an assortment of details that upon cursory examination seem to arrange nicely into a familiar narrative don't "make the meaning of this more apparent," and it is terrible journalism to assume otherwise.

I hate to disagree with you rhubs, but you've got that all wrong. First off, I doubt you could find a soldier in the Army who thinks that the class A or B uniforms are more "functional and comfortable" than ACUs. They are dress uniforms and about as functional and comfortable as a suit -- a cheap, badly tailored suit. I had assignments that required me to be in Class Bs all the time. They were uniformly (haha) loathed. The shoes alone ... agh, I can't even bear to think about it.

Second, carrying weapons all the time is a) completely unnecessary, and b) a logistical nightmare. Carrying loaded weapons all the time would be an enormous safety hazard. That's why we have MPs, who did their job here well. If everyone in that room had been armed, the only difference would be an additional 50 friendly fire casualties.

Ah, Michelle Malkin, who conflates the experiences of those that perished in the Nazi Holocaust and those who lose the flat tax argument. Malkin, the Grand Associator, who somehow has not been banned from the ether for her complete disregard for basic investigative methods. Wake me when she presents some credentials for the high standard she invents.

It's likely that the Army profiles Muslim recruits--and they profile everyone, it should be noted--and that those who get in have been thoroughly scrutinized. And if we're talking about what happens inside of the Army, it should be noted that the larger concern should be for those who easily escape profiling and go on to use the Army's training for their own anti-Union ideals.

I was surprised most of all that it was a Major. Normally, in the military non-performing officers get the shove out the door when they are Captains (with full honors, yada yada), at a younger age and then they are out on their own. This was an older guy a few years away from a full pension, and even though he was scheduled to be deployed, it wouldn't have been out in the field.

It might sound strange, but this kind of reminds me of the Producer who tried to shake down Letterman. Both of these guys obviously have a major screw lose, so they either hid it well for a long time, or just lost all sense.
They are both inexplicable to me, so when faced with that I simply can't find any "meaning" to either. It is a tragic and meaningless waste of lives by a deranged lunatic.

Over at Michelle Malkin's nut site she linked to some Conservative who found fault with Obama over this incident (surprise, surprise)

"I want all of you to know that as Commander in Chief, that there’s no greater honor, but no greater responsibility for me (emphasis his) than to make sure that the extraordinary men and women in uniform are properly cared for…"

"Poor soul, it’s so saddening to know how this tragedy affects him. Listening to this address provides some insight into Obama’s character and how he ranks his priorities."

No, I think it an insight into the diseased soul of the idiot who wrote that.

When Bush talked about (and lamented) the burden of having to sign the letters for the war dead home, of course I could only feel sympathy for him. I always believed his actions were wrong, but well intentioned, and his grief real.

I defer to you, ratner. The thing is, the non-ACU unis just look better, so I assumed they were more practical, in the same sense that slacks and a blazer both look better and are more practical for office work than hunting gear.

But your argument for relying on MPs would be more persuasive if MPs, rather than a civilian cop, had actually stopped the guy. Surely Army marksmanship standards are high enough that the danger of out-of-control friendly fire would at least not exceed the danger of an unstoppable gunman.

OK, guys and girls (you too Jason) please tell me *what, exactly, is the meaning* we are all to take from this incident? A bushel-full of symbols, metaphors, (alleged) significances, correspondences, contradictions, and on and on. Valid conclusions?!? You got me, I can't think of one.

"Malkin, the Grand Associator"

That's good, dylanposer, very good. I shall remember this one, it's so beautifully apt, as well as clever. Speaking of associating, btw, I can't think of a damn thing to associate Malkin with. (Except "Unhinged" *her term for us liberals!* ain't that an irony?

Speaking of irony, where's irony, if you know whom I mean?

blackie, he's not a real officer. The docs come in as Captains usually, and promotion to Major is pretty routine. Regular officers come in as 2LTs, and then have to perform well for years until they get promoted (or not) to Captain and then Major.

Rhubs, ratner is correct. I always wanted to wear BDUs but many of my jobs (NSA, Pentagon) were "office jobs" that required office unis. Also, I think the fact that Hassan was shot by a civilian is probably dumb luck, as she was there and MPs weren't.

From what I read in the New York Times and at the ABC newas and CNN website the reports coming in about the shooter seem to varied and inconsistent to be able to say anything definite about him at this time.

One thing is certain, the respectable media is falling all over themselves manufacturing reasons for the shooting which make the shooter seem like the real victim in this ghastly affair.

Here is one such report:

"Muslim image campaigns suffer after Fort Hood shootings"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-06-muslim-image-campaigns_N.htm

Harry's Place has put together to try and understand the meaning of the attack at Fort Hood:

Lucy Lips, November 6th 2009, 4:35 pm

"The first reports on the BBC indicated that the terrible shooting at Fort Hood, committed by Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an American soldier of Palestinian ethnic origin was not “connected to terrorism”.

Instead, there was some discussion of concern about being deployed to Afghanistan, and suggestions that Major Hasan had “been battling racial harassment because of his “Middle Eastern ethnicity”".

Indeed, the BBC report initially included the following quotation:

Asked whether the shootings were a terrorist act, Lt Gen Cone said: “I couldn’t rule that out but I’m telling you that right now, the evidence does not suggest that.”

I did not post on the topic of Major Hasan’s massacre of his army buddies this morning because I do not automatically assume that any crime that is committed by a Muslim is religiously motivated. Indeed, there have been many mass shootings in the US, some committed by soldiers and some not, some committed by jihadists, and some by other species of nutters...."

Read it whole here:

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/11/06/a-jihadist-attack-in-the-usa/

Two-year-olds are some of the most violent little bastards on the face of the planet. Once while helping out in my daughter's daycare center, one of her little friends had the temerity to reach over, grab, and eat the snacks in the next little guy's bowl. The victim of the theft silently stood up, grabbed his chair and swung it at the thief's head. Total chaos ensued.

We start out as violent little bastards and grow up into would-be violent big bastards restrained (barely) by law, opportunity, conscience, and occasional self-interest. Those and other factors may restrain our violence, but they never extinguish it. It is always there, waiting its chance.

I find no "meaning" in the shootings at Ft. Hood. I'm simply amazed that, in a nation of 300+ million, such shootings aren't an everyday occurrance.

Workplace shootings are pretty common in America, so much so that most people understand that "going postal" does not refer to shipping by the US Postal Service instead of UPS or FedEx. The shootings all have one thing in common, and it's not religion, ethnicity, shoe size, preference for Mary Ann or Ginger or even political leanings. The shooters are unhinged. Like unhappy families, each unhinged person is unhinged in his own way.

Especially in a high stress job like the military. But it's more frequent for them to take their own life, instead of going on a killing spree.

Though from working in that environment, I can easily imagine the amount of anti-Muslim sentiment he had to face.

zardoz67
"Though from working in that environment, I can easily imagine the amount of anti-Muslim sentiment he had to face."

Can you Zardoz? I can't. People who are discriminated against don't get promoted to Major as he was.

There is nothing that was reported said to him that wasn't said to me when I was in the military. The military, especially basic training, isn't exaclty Jew friendly either.

At no time did I or any other Jew I knew in the service ever wanted to kill anyone.

I find the vast amount of sympathy this murderer is getting from the media, disgusting. They make it seem as every Muslim soldier has a good reason to kill their fellow non Muslim soldiers.

Just because I can imagine the anti-Muslim sentiment doesn't mean it justifies his actions, or that I condone them.

The fact that he went on a killing spree says more about his mental instability than it does about any casual discrimination that he might have faced. And he probably faced a lot being a Muslim in the military AND stationed in Texas.

And I think there is a difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim feeling in the military, because we've never been and are not now in a shooting war with the Jews.

But with every incident like this, only the perpetrator knows his true motives. I just hope that he recovers so that he faces a court martial and we learn the truth behind this.

TGossard,

Thanks. I'd associate Michelle with something, but then I'd be playing into her charades.

zardoz67

“But with every incident like this, only the perpetrator knows his true motives. I just hope that he recovers so that he faces a court martial and we learn the truth behind this.”

I agree with your conclusion.

However, your point that

“And I think there is a difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim feeling in the military, because we've never been and are not now in a shooting war with the Jews.”

Is way off, Jews have always faced discrimination in the US military though it’s never been nearly as bad as in other countries. ( I assume that everyone here is familiar with the Dreyfus affair in France.)

Here is one 19c American example: Uriah P. Levy

“During his tenure in the U.S. Navy, Levy faced a great deal of antisemitism. He was court-martialed six times and once demoted from the rank of Captain. Twice, he was dismissed from the Navy, but reinstated. He defended his conduct in his handling of naval affairs before a Court of Inquiry and in 1855 was restored to his former position. Later, in recognition of his superior abilities, he was promoted to the rank of Commodore, then the highest rank in the U.S. Navy.”

He reacted to these injustices not by killing any one but by:

Promoting “justice and human rights, in his post as Commodore, Levy was instrumental in abolishing flogging (corporal punishment) in the U.S. Navy, which resulted in Congressional approval of an anti-flogging bill in 1850.[3]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uriah_P._Levy

The fact that we have “never been and are not now in a shooting war with the Jews” makes the discrimination all the more bizarre and hard to understand.

I will concede that America is not innocent of anti-Semitism, because it is part of the same Western Christian culture that has been scapegoating Jews for centuries. It was wrong then, it's wrong now, and much progress has been made in combatting it during the last century.

Hatred of Muslims is a much more recent phenomena, just decades old, and the feelings are still "white hot", as it were. And opposed to the baseless slanders against the Jews, people can point to actual acts committed by Muslims.

While that does not justify hatred and discrimination, I can understand why people would feel that way.

Personally I am opposed to both hatred of Jews and Muslims. I believe in judging people by their words and deeds, not by their race and religion.

Too late for inclusion, but, (fwiw) what yard said.

With much sadness, regret, and compassion for all concerned, I have arrived at a tentative conclusion: this is a guy, a soldier, an officer, a doc (pseudo, whatever), a Muslim, with family and friends who love and care for him; who, under considerable if not at times extreme personal pressure and stress while performing his job - who had some question marks in his record - cracked.

I mean, what person in his position would not have conflicts, misgivings, deep doubts, anguished feelings for his patients and their families, also for Muslims like himself serving in the U.S. military, with relatives living or formerly living in majority Muslim nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq, watches the cable news, reads letters from distressed friends, has recurring depressive moods, dark, suicidal thoughts (even plans though he "would never act on them"), homicidal fantasies, nightsweats, nightmares, bursts of rage at times inappropriate, even startling, shocking, written reflections and vents. So with all this negative potential, who could not imagine or believe the guy was basically ok, under the circumstances doing heroic service, not realizing that at the same time he was inwardly deteriorating and disorganizing to an unstable, ultimately disabled state of mind, with catastrophic consequences??? (does that sentence make sense? - if not you get the idea, I'm too stressed myself to know for sure).

From what I have been hearing just recently, Hasan was recruited by an al Qaeda big wig working out of Yemen. His may in fact have been a terrorist act which will then have its own meanings. I'd keep my meaning powder dry till more information consolidates itself.

On a different point, Zengerle's post left me hanging.

"...The fact that they occurred on an Army base; the fact that the shooter was Muslim officer; the fact that we're currently fighting wars in two Muslim countries--they all add up to make the meaning of this more apparent than the others. Rather than Columbine, think of Oklahoma City as a more appropriate historical precedent...."

What is the meaning that Zengerle sees here apart from the nod to Oklahoma City. I think the thrust of, and build up in, his post obligate him to do some clear explaining more than what he has done.