I don't understand why anyone would be bent out of shape over the statements Joe Lieberman made on FOX News Sunday regarding Nidal Malik Hasan's murderous attack at Fort Hood.
Lieberman had the audacity to suggest that an investigation into the slaughter last Thursday was in order. He dared to call it a possible terrorist attack.
That definition is more than some people can handle.
From the Wall Street Journal:
A senior U.S. senator on Sunday said the shootings at Fort Hood could have been a terrorist attack, and that he would launch a congressional investigation into whether the U.S. military could have prevented it.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who heads the Senate's Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said initial evidence suggested that the alleged shooter, Army Major Nidal Hasan, was a "self-radicalized, home-grown terrorist" who had turned to Islamic extremism while under personal stress.
...Mr. Lieberman, appearing on "Fox News Sunday," cautioned that it remained too early to draw any definitive conclusions. He said his comments were based on "reports that we are receiving" about Mr. Hasan's actions and comments.
The Army's top officer, Gen. George Casey, wouldn't rule out that the shooting was an act of terrorism, but cautioned against speculation at this point. "We all want to know what happened and what motivated the suspect, but we need to … let the investigation take its course," he told ABC News's "This Week."
Mr. Lieberman said that if news reports were true that Mr. Hasan had turned to Islamic extremism, "the murder of these 13 people was a terrorist act and, in fact, it was the most-destructive terrorist act to be committed on American soil since 9/11."
"We don't know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act," Mr. Lieberman added.
The lawmaker said he would begin a Senate investigation aimed at uncovering Mr. Hasan's motives and asking "whether the Army missed warning signs." He also called on the Pentagon to begin an independent investigation to determine whether "warning signs were missed."
Mr. Lieberman said preliminary evidence suggested that Mr. Hasan had denounced the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "In the U.S. Army, this is not a matter of constitutional freedom of speech," the senator said. "If Hasan was showing signs, saying to people that he had become an Islamist extremist, the U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone."
Why is what Lieberman said controversial?
It's a no-brainer that there should be an investigation.
I completely agree that there should be zero tolerance when someone in the U.S. Army is talking like an Islamic extremist.
...Gen. Casey said the Army was conducting an investigation to try to determine the motivation behind the shootings. "We in the Army will take a very hard look at ourselves and ask ourselves some very hard questions," he said.
He expressed concern that speculation about the shooting could result in a "backlash" against Muslim soldiers. "What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even-greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here," he said. "We have a very diverse army. We have a very diverse society. And that gives us all strength."
Oh, no! We can't have a "backlash"!
I am so sick of hearing about the dreaded "backlash."
Instead, of worrying about these "backlashes" that never materialize, the Army should be focusing on keeping all our troops secure and safe from any U.S. soldiers who decide to lash out at Americans and, in effect, become the enemy.
With thirteen Americans killed and dozens of others wounded, I hardly think the priority right now should be to protect potential shooters or worry about hurt feelings.
If a soldier gives others reason to doubt his or her loyalty, appropriate action should be taken to assure the safety of the troops.
On page one of the New York Times today, an article by Andrea Elliot examines the difficulties that Muslim soldiers are facing in our wars in Muslim countries, "Complications Grow for Muslims Serving Nation."
Abdi Akgun joined the Marines in August of 2000, fresh out of high school and eager to serve his country. As a Muslim, the attacks of Sept. 11 only steeled his resolve to fight terrorism.
But two years later, when Mr. Akgun was deployed to Iraq with the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, the thought of confronting Muslims in battle gave him pause.
He was haunted by the possibility that he might end up killing innocent civilians.
“It’s kind of like the Civil War, where brothers fought each other across the Mason-Dixon line,” Mr. Akgun, 28, of Lindenhurst, N.Y., who returned from Iraq without ever pulling the trigger. “I don’t want to stain my faith, I don’t want to stain my fellow Muslims, and I also don’t want to stain my country’s flag.”
Thousands of Muslims have served in the United States military — a legacy that some trace to the First World War. But in the years since Sept. 11, 2001, as the United States has become mired in two wars on Muslim lands, the service of Muslim-Americans is more necessary and more complicated than ever before.
In the aftermath of the shootings at Fort Hood on Thursday by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan of the Army, a psychiatrist, many Muslim soldiers and their commanders say they fear that the relationship between the military and its Muslim service members will only grow more difficult.
This makes no sense to me.
Why should fighting America's enemies give members of the U.S. military pause?
Throughout our history, millions of Americans have been called to fight against an enemy with which they share a common heritage or faith. Conflicts of conscience are nothing new.
The onus was on them to prove that they were loyal Americans through their actions, by serving their country honorably.
For instance, how many Americans of German heritage fought and died in the World Wars?
They showed that their allegiance was to America, not Germany. If they were sympathetic to the enemy, then they certainly didn't belong in the U.S. Armed Forces. End of story.
We have a volunteer military. If Muslims in our military don't want to harm other Muslims, the radicals who are our enemies, then they should get out.
Of course, an investigation needs to be done into Hasan's attack. That's what Lieberman wants. Where's the problem?
It's nuts to expect him, a U.S. senator, to dance around reality when discussing the violence at Fort Hood.
Hasan targeted an Army base. He intended to kill people and he succeeded. It's possible that he adopted the mindset of an Islamic extremist.
If an investigation shows that Hasan's actions had something to do with extremist Muslim beliefs, if he lashed out because he disagreed with U.S. policy and was fighting against the U.S., then what he did should be defined as terrorism. He did the work of a terrorist.
It was an act of war.
There should be a "backlash" against members of the U.S. military siding with the enemy.
Lieberman isn't the one acting like an extremist.
He's acting responsibly.
______________________
Transcript: Sen. Lieberman on 'FNS'
No comments:
Post a Comment