|
| |
IBDEditorials.com
Political Correctness: The Pentagon's long-awaited review of the Fort Hood terror attack completely ignores the elephant in the barrack — the internal threat from radicalized Muslim soldiers.
The 86-page report, "Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood," in fact does little to protect troops, because it never cites jihad or anything related to Islamic terror.
Only a single page is dedicated to the core question of how, in the middle of a two-front war on Islamic terror, an enemy sympathizer full of boiling hatred for the U.S. managed to infiltrate the officer corps and then telegraph his violent intent against "infidels" without being detected by counterintelligence. Even that page — under the legalese heading, "Oversight of the Alleged Perpetrator" — sidesteps the issue of Islamic radicalism in the ranks.
The closest the report comes to addressing it is an appendix to the report on risk factors. But it dismisses the Islamist threat by stating that most religious fundamentalist groups "are not violent."
Instead, the Pentagon devotes in mind-numbing detail whole sections of its report to peripheral issues, such as the emergency response to the shootings.
While we expected military brass to downplay the massacre's religious factor for fear of offending Muslims, we did not foresee a wholesale blackout of the truth, no matter how politically sensitive. The Pentagon scandalously censored key facts about an internal threat and how it missed it, while claiming to drill down on how to "protect troops" from future "insider" attacks.
Gutless brass seem more concerned with protecting the status quo ante of blind "diversity." Recall what Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said after the attack: "As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."
No, what's worse is being blindsided again.
If they've learned nothing from the insider attack, they've only exposed troops to more ambushes from jihadist enemies within.
Even Time magazine, normally incurious about all things Islamic, had to wonder how a military review of the Fort Hood fragging could leave out the terrorist's Muslim faith.
"It's a remarkable omission for the U.S. armed forces, whose young officers are often ordered to read Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War' with its command to know your enemy," Time said, and what motivates him.
The Pentagon report simply whitewashes over the pronounced religious motives of Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who allegedly yelled "Allahu Akbar!" before killing a dozen fellow soldiers and injuring dozens more.
One of the report's authors, former Army Secretary Togo West, argued at a press conference the problem of "self-radicalization" in the military is not rooted in Islam. "Our concern is not with the religion." Really? Then what's the source of the "radicalization"?
Fittingly, the Pentagon report also studiously avoids addressing the growing problem of political correctness in the military that allowed Hasan to advance up the ranks despite chronic concerns about his performance and loyalty.
The willful blindness stands in sharp contrast to the military's decision to weed out neo-Nazis in the ranks after 22 Fort Bragg soldiers years ago were ID'd as known white supremacists.
In 1995, the Pentagon explicitly banned participation in "organizations that espouse supremacist causes" or "advocate the use of force or violence."
Apparently Islamic supremacists have been exempted. No need to weed them out.
If the Pentagon is too PC to protect its own people on its own soil from
jihadists, how can American civilians be sure it can protect them?