Fort Hood Failures

The U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has released its report on the Fort Hood Shooting. You can read the report here. Here is the committees pithy summary of the facts.

On November 5, 2009, a lone attacker strode into the deployment center at Fort Hood, Texas. Moments later, 13 Department of Defense (DoD) employees were dead and another 32 were wounded in the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001.

What we learn from the report is appalling. Here are the two key findings. First, the Army had more than enough evidence to recognize Nidal Malik Hasan's "radicalization to violent Islamist extremism". Indeed at least a couple of Hasan's superiors clearly recognized it, calling him a "ticking time bomb." Nearly everyone in the Army who encountered Hasan recognized his "radicalization". His fellow soldiers recognized it and many of his superior officers recognized it. He wrote and presented a paper advertising his radicalization.

Hasan's paper was full of empathetic and supportive recitation of other violent Islamist extremist views, including defense of Osama bin Laden, slanted historical accounts blaming the United States for problems in the Middle East, and arguments that anger at the United States is justifiable. Several col leagues who witnessed the presentation described Hasan as justifying suicide bombers.

Only a complete fool could have failed to know what Hasan was. To say that the Army did not act on this knowledge would be misleading. Hasan's evaluations were deliberately whitewashed. His interest in militant Islam was described in these evaluations as "research into terrorism". His lackluster performance and alarming behavior was routinely ignored, as were the concerns of many evaluators. Hasan was protected from scrutiny.

The second finding is that the FBI knew that Hasan was in communication with a known suspected terrorist, Anwar al-Awlaki. Awlaki has had his hands in a handful of terrorist attacks here and abroad, including the Christmas Day bomber. Encouraging people in other countries to commit atrocities is what Awlaki does for a living. At least two Joint Terrorist Task Forces were aware of Hasan's contacts with Awlaki, but the one in charge didn't think that this was worthy of much attention. No one saw fit to inform the Army.

Let's evaluate this information. The U.S. Army and the Federal Bureau of Investigation acted as enablers for a home grown terrorist. To be fair to the Obama Administration, the Army was at this well before President Obama took office. That's one more thing to blame on Dubya. It does suggest a very dangerous dysfunction in the current military culture. The U.S. military is so terrified of appearing culturally insensitive that it is prepared to promote Osama bin Laden to the rank of general.

The Administration can't get off so easily with regard to the role of the FBI in this disaster. It was almost a year into Obama's Presidency that the FBI chose to ignore communications between a terrorist mastermind and an Army Major. The Senate committee identifies a problem.

The FBI 's inquiry focused narrowly on whether Hasan was engaged in terrorist activity - as opposed to whether he was radicalizing to violent Islamist extremism and whether this radicalization might pose counterintelligence or other threats (e.g., Hasan might spy for the Taliban if he was deployed to Afghanistan).

Conservative critics of the Administration's approach to counterterrorism have complained that it subordinates national security strategy to law enforcement. The lines above confirm that view. In law enforcement, the task is to make a case for crimes already committed. In national security strategy, the task is to keep the next bad thing from happening.

The Senate Committee report leaves no doubt: the Army and the FBI didn't have their heads on straight and now they have the blood of our soldiers on their hands. The report details a lot of institutional changes, but what we need here is a change of mind. I am not optimistic, while this Administration lasts. To date, to my knowledge, not a single person in the Army has been demoted over this. Not a single person in the FBI has been fired.

Comments

[Jimi]

It's all about calling a "Spade a Spade," and being free to do so. These people slip throught the cracks because no one wants to call a "Spade a Spade," and the reason for that is they are immediately made out to be "Racist"....etc.

[lynn]

Political correctness is to blame for this. As Jimi said above, people are afraid of calling attention to Muslim extremism for fear of being called racists, bigots, etc. Same reason that people are afraid to speak out in favor of the Arizona illegal immigration crackdown. And the political leaders we have are to blame for this also. Obama has stated "the police acted stupidly" when that incident occurred. He said after the Ft. Hood shooting that we should not be quick to criticize Muslims. But after the Giffords shooting, Obama was right there blaming people on the right for the tragedy, ignoring the facts of the case. He encourages the political correctness with the best of them. And that trickles down to the masses who look up to him as the leader of the US. It's time we get back to facts and not PC.

[Donald Pay]

Lynn, please provide any evidence for your statement that "But after the Giffords shooting, Obama was right there blaming people on the right for the tragedy, ignoring the facts of the case." As far as I can tell you just made that up, or you are regurgitating the hateful misinformation provided to you through rightwing media. I have looked and found no such stated or written sentiment attributed to President Obama or to the White House. In fact, President Obama went out of his way to not blame people on the right for the shooting. I would be interested in any evidence you can provide.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0111/obama_on_giffords_549bb17f-f752-4b02-8127-422c4dce8e1d.html

[BillW]

Lynn,

This is a rare occasion when Donald is actually correct. Obama said no such thing. In fact, the liberal press does not have the exclusive franchise on spinning the news to suport their political agenda. In his enthusiasm to make hay from liberals describing the AZ gunman as motivated by the Tea Party, Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the legions at FOX News seemed to have completely left out the fact that the Tea Party sent an email to all of its followers less then 24 hours after the shooting describing the shooter as a "left wing gunman". In slamming socialist Bernia Sanders for using the AZ shooting as a fund raising opportunity O'Reilly and FOX also overlooked the Tea Party sending an email to all of its followers five days after the event asking for donations to help them defend themselves against the unfair allegations of the left regarding the shooting. Very few political idealogues have clean hands when it comes to the shooting, but Obama actually handled the entire event quite well - and this from a solid conservative who cannot wait to see the bum voted out in 2012.

[Ken Blanchard]

To all: as far as I know, BillW is right. Obama did not use the tragedy in Tucson as a weapon against the right. I would like to see a source for the information that the "Tea Party" sent out an e-mail calling the shooter a "left-wing gunman". I am not doubting BillW here, I just don't know who the "Tea Party" is in this instance.

A lot of the Left has egg on its face from this story, including the New York Times and Paul Krugman. I don't know that either has issued a retraction or apololgized. In fact, the shameless exploitation of the Tucson shooting by the Left was widespread. It is to the President's credit that he did not join in.

[Jimi]

Ken,

"Obama did not use the tragedy in Tucson as a weapon against the right."

Sure he did...he just did not make it obvious. The point of the poltical part of the speech was to set up a strategy of muzzleing the other side.

Consider:

"And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy – it did not - but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud."-Obama 2011

He couldn't blame the right...everybody knows the kid had nothing to do with the right, and if anything had a bent to the left. The point being, he exposed his hand a little in pointing to the direction of trying to use the shooting as a tactic to control future rhetoric against the left.

[KB]

Jimi: I cannot agree. Calling for more civility is hardly offensive in itself. President Obama seems to deny in your quote any false interpretation of the event.

[Jimi]

Ken,

You have fallen for the trap...just as the speech was designed. You need to define "civility", before you can claim calling for "civility" is an innocent measure.

[larry kurtz]

Glenn Beck is the Anwar al Awlaki of the Zionist Right. Michele Bachmann is the Anwar al Awlaki of the christian right. Sarah Palin is the Anwar al Awlaki of the Idiot Right. Bill O'Wrongly of the catholic Right. Sean Hannity is the Anwar al Awlaki of the Corportatist Right...and so on.

[KB]

Larry: you're off your nut. Just because you dislike A and B, and A is a terrorist, it doesn't follow that B is a terrorist. Sorry to introduce you to linear logic in a three dimensional world. I am sure reentry must be difficult.

[Jimi]

Larry,

Step 1: When you run out of Med's, go to the pharmacy to get more Med's

Step 2: You have to take the Med's before they work....simplying owning them does nothing.

[larry kurtz]

When Pete Fuller goes down, the metamorphosis will be complete. Glenn Brenner is the Anwar al Awlaki of the 7th Circuit. South Dakota is the Anwar al Awlaki of the United States.

[Ken Blanchard]

Larry: you are the Anwar al Awlaki of SDP. I am reminded of cartoon that once was stuck to my refrigerator. Two wolves are standing up with their sheep's hoods off. Behind them is a flock of wolves in sheep's clothing. One of the upright wolves says to the other: "wait a minute. Isn't anyone here a real sheep?"

[larry kurtz]

Ken, do some good with your mind instead of defending red state failures. It doesn't take much reading through your pile to understand why you fled Missouri to live in South Dakota. Go get your SAD evaluated then take on things you can fix: like poverty, racism, and obesity in South Dakota.

What the hell were you doing up at 1:13 in the morning?

[Ken Blanchard]

Larry: I am from Arkansas. I work late, some days. Are you really suggesting that the above story is not something that we should be concerned about? If so, you have a very different idea of citizenship than I have.

I think South Dakota is a very fine place to live, as a matter of fact. I am under no illusion that I can fix it.

[Jasmin]

BTW, I opposed extra-legal means of prceioutsng the war on terror under Bush, and I oppose the latest effort. It turns internet service providers into agents of the state, requiring them to retain text of encrypted conversations. What's to stop bad actors at the ISPs from doing a little snooping on their own? This is not going to work anyway as some types of end to end encryption can not be prevented by the ISP.

[Girish]

I agree with you in terms of political cosrncteers we are awash in it, often to the detriment of progress and ideas. This can be a huge problem with liberalism and I grant you that entirely. The use of PC-ness, however, is that it asks people to exercise caution around these sensitive and dangerous issues. If he is, in fact, a Muslim terrorist, and that can be proven, then it will be said, PC or no PC. There is no doubt in my mind. Media will break that story, the government will talk about it, the military will take measures to prevent against infiltrators again, etc. However, the power of PC, is that until there is 100% certainty, people explore non-offensive options, not allowing their judgment to be clouded by their biases and their fears.You've talked about facts that may prove his link to terrorism contacting al-Qaeda, for example. This is very convincing and you have every right to bring it up. But at the same time, in this article, you've also demonstrated a lack of knowledge about Islam, and made subsequent assumptions about his terrorism based on his religion. This is not just not politically incorrect it is blatantly offensive and potentially physically dangerous to Muslim Americans. It also further radicalizes Islam in this conflict, when the overwhelming majority of practicing Muslims do not condone terrorist acts. For example: Witnesses say that, just before he began shooting, he yelled “Allahu Akbar!” meaning, in English, “Allah is great!” This is a war cry used by radical Islamic jihadists. This is absolutely ridiculous Alec. A war cry? It's also what every Muslim chants five times a day as they pray toward Mecca, and used as a general informal conversational expression. Every Muslim says this all the time. If people believed what you said, however, whenever they heard this, images of radical terrorism would come to mind. Shouting this at this moment, the moment where he probably believed he was going to die, doesn't make him a terrorist, it just makes him a Muslim, which everyone already knew. The way you wrote this however, seemed to very intentionally invoke fears of Islam in order to make your point. You have a right to any opinion, obviously, however the danger of any discrimination or hint of it is that Muslim Americans will have to live in a different and dangerous world. The value of forced PC as a response, is that it necessitates a certain caution. If everyone had instantly assumed that he was a terrorist, and that we all should have known at least partially simply because he was a Muslim, can you imagine being a Muslim child in the United States, trying to go to school that day? Can you imagine being a Muslim soldier? Without a little political cosrncteers, we may go down a similar road to the one we took with Japanese Americans during world war II, a very dark chapter in our history.

[Diah]

Dismounted thanks for your thftghuoul reflection. You're absolutely right. I am not a soup kitchen, a halfway house, rehab facility or a charity. I do not have sympathy for people who support al-Qaeda nor do I care about them when they get arrested. I run this blog to stimulate critical thinking among my readers and as a way to advance my own analysis on the topic. The subjects that I profile are just that, subjects for examination not my compadres. Now, with regard to your other question, about what compels Western converts to Salafi-Jihadism and then away from it, that's a whole different story. I'd be thrilled to let my blog serve as a stage for you and/or a number of individuals who have something substantive to share about their experiences that helps my readers better understand who is, and just as importantly, who isn't a threat. I care about processes, mechanics, dynamics I want to know how the gears works. If you want to share your story or know of those who do, contact me direct through the blog and let's try to work out a way to showcase it. thanks again for your comment jb

[Paul]

Remember, the key to hitting lgoenr drives is speed, and Eric Jones will teach you ways to generate and employ your own speed in his detailed and simple to follow book, give it a go, you will not be disillusioned. The 5 Keys To Distance by World Long Drive Champ Eric Jones offers a full-refund / full-money back guarantee if you are not happy with your results after reading the book, so what's stopping you? Read more on the product at it's official site : TargetCenteredGolf.com.

[Sara]

The images posetd here (of the transnational jihadi-takfiri type) all seem to be images easily found via a quick search for, for example, Omar Hammami/Abu Mansur al-Amriki, on Google Images. A question that comes to mind is, is this significant when compared to those individuals who design their own unique artwork? Do the latter have greater, so to speak, initiative? Are they (potentially) more dangerous? Are they more likely to move from passive support to active participation? I don't have answers, I just thought I'd share the questions that come to my mind.

[Audrey]

just because you have a right to say sotnihmeg, doesnt include the right to be taken seriously. the horror of george bush, the texas mafia and republicans framing democrats with useless sex scandal videos is unacceptable. does anyone have any copy of the donations, libraries, schools that george bush built. he only built one cia arm which cannot be questioned as it sells arms to saddam hussein, osama bin laden, gaddafi. and how come under g.bush there are no many people in death row and prison, for small or unsubstantiated criminal charges. america we are praying for you. but the enemy is within, who will guard the guards. we are grateful for president obama. he is clear, transparent and treats everyone with respect. even king abdullah of saudi arabia did so much of charity, including donating to new orleans during hurricane katerina. its time the media started protesting this web of lies and secresy that surround george bush sr and jr. also, please note, how come bush has the privilege of taking all the presidential gifts in his library .????? thats a lot of money and it belongs to the state. how come bush gets away with everything, its time the media starting standing up for its people and all the poeple around the world, especially president obama, our friend.

[Abebaw]

Benedict Arnold betrayed the Congressional Army slmipy over money issues, not for fame or loyalty to the crown, but that's beside the point considering he made a total dumbwit of himself to the service of the Army and was demoted twice with the only means to pay the debts of living in luxury off of borrowing was to crawl back to the crown least the loan sharks have his kneecaps And in situation of this, what is very disturbing is the declaration that the United States is considered an active battleground in the Global War now when there has been no major military battles against AQ, Hamas or Iranian Guard on our Soil and, hostile act has not been clearly defined within this passage. Would a anti-policy rally be considered, hostile enough? Would holding Town halls for Politicans running in opposite political ideology to whomever is sitting President be deemed, hostile enough? Where does it end? This is the works of a tyrant's mind at it's best and it is horrible.And for the liberal-tards out there, what if this policy is kept in place when a true Warmonger who utterly hates Liberals, for example, comes into power as President and chooses to use this piece of policy to purge liberals? Hmm? Is that policy what you all want to keep cheering and defending about? To dance on the double edged sword is suicide. Backing this policy for either political side is madness and should not be celebrated over or endorsed. It is one thing to seek out a Citizen to be arrested for being suspect to physicaly damage the Nation and harm its Citizens, as there are laws in how to deal with Traitors for that matter. It is another problem in all to just declare the USA a battlefield where unmanned drone strikes can be authorized without any sort of Warrant issued on American suspects of Treason, as we do not have laws for this sort of behavior and mindset.Reply