What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Let's be sure not to learn anything from this, now

Well, I've googled and hand-searched books and can't find it. So here, from memory, is an old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon. Calvin makes some remarks to Hobbes as they ride their sled about not wanting to change. He's fine just the way he is. They hit the bottom of a gorge, hard, and Hobbes suggests that maybe this ride wasn't such a good idea. And Calvin gasps, "Careful, let's be sure not to learn anything from this, now."

Update: Courtesy of Esteemed Husband the cartoon is at this site. Still working on embedding it.

Ignorance%20is%20bliss.gif

Herewith, I give you the U.S. Army's highest officer, Gen.Casey:

General Casey told me on This Week that he’s worried that diversity could become another victim of Thursday’s mass killing at Ft. Hood. The incident was not the first case of fratricide by a Muslim and when I asked how the military plans to deal with this potential problem in its ranks, Casey said, “Speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers and 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.

An even greater tragedy if diversity becomes a casualty. If that isn't a slap in the face to the victims of this jihad attack and their families, I don't know what is.

Let's be sure not to learn anything from this, now.

HT: Atlas Shrugs

Update #2: The evidence just keeps on pouring in: U.S. intel. agencies have known for months that Hasan had attempted to contact al Qaeda. In this case the information was kept isolated from those who might have done something about it because of those "walls of separation" among U.S. agencies, intended to protect Privacy, Freedom, and the American Way. Or something.

Comments (103)

March 31, 1991

[Calvin and Hobbes are careening in their red wagon through the woods.]

CALVIN: "It's true, Hobbes, ignorance is bliss! Once you know things, you start seeing problems everywhere. And once you see problems, you feel like you ought to try to fix them. And fixing problems always seems to require personal change. And change means doing things that aren't fun! I say phooey to that! But if you're willfully stupid, you don't know any better, so you can keep doing whatever you like! The secret to happiness is short-term, stupid self-interest!"

HOBBES: "We're heading for that cliff!"

CALVIN: [covering his eyes] "I don't want to know about it."

CRASH!

HOBBES: "I'm not sure I can stand so much bliss."

CALVIN: "Careful! We don't want to learn anything from this."

Here.

Heh - shouldn't take much trouble for Lydia to embed that into her post.

I suppose it's a good thing that we can still laugh about this. 'Cause it's not as if crying, instead, would do any more to change it.

I wonder if abortionists said something like this to each other when pro-life leaders asked that they not be painted with the same brush as the people who were bombing abortion clinics and shooting abortion doctors.

...Nah.

Speaking of cartoons, here's an apt one from Bill Vallicella's blog:

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/11/der-untergang-des-abendlandes.html

sadly - i knew that the islamic roots of the ft. hood murders would be PC'd -even by the military 'brass'....
'diversity ' is the name of the game...even in the military..
example-West Point- in 2002 - had so few muslim cadets that they met in a small room...by 2006-they needed a mosque on campus...

Lydia, there is something I would really like to know:
What could be learnt from the mass killing at Ft. Hood?
That Muslims are not to be trusted? That there should be no Muslims in the Army, no Muslim medical doctors, no second amendment for Muslim citizens, no Muslims in powerful positions, no Muslims in public life? That we need severe surveillance of Muslim citizens?
Fortunately, Gen. Casey has learned a different historic lesson. Consider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

Yes, Grobi, the lessons Gen. Casey has learned are so _fortunate_ and _have_ been so fortunate for us all. They make me feel so patriotic just to think about. Let's hope he just goes on and on applying them. /sarc

Here's a bit I posted in another thread:

One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6526030/Fort-Hood-gunman-had-told-US-military-colleagues-that-infidels-should-have-their-throats-cut.html

Lydia, if the only thing you meant was that we shouldn't allow political correctness to run amok, I fullheartedly agree.

Muslims cannot be trusted. That is, alas, what we should learn from this. A fortiori because of the abundant evidence that the authorities would rather let a few more of us here, a few more there, die by treacherous violence than cross the rules of pristine nondiscrimination.

I'm writing a fantasy speech in my mind in which someone in Casey's position says something like, "To our shame as superior officers, we must admit that we have created an atmosphere of fear in the armed forces--fear of appearing politically incorrect, fear of telling the truth, fear of expressing legitimate concerns. I hereby pledge myself to changing that. I have instructed all my staff that potential whistle-blowers must not be in fear of reprisals. If you have a reason to suspect that someone in the military is dangerous, report it. From this day forth, and inasmuch as it lies in me, there are no specially protected groups in the military, groups whose members can make threatening statements with impunity, groups whose members have their behavior white-washed. I urge anyone with information indicating a danger to our troops to bring that information forward. This should not have happened, and I hope to change the military culture in which political correctness has led to a suicidal passivity in the face of open threat."

Steve,

I'm guessing that Lydia's 10:50 comment is exactly what you were looking for in the "Muscular Christianity" thread.

Can you expect Casey to say or do otherwise when Obama and Napolitano are reassuring the muslim world of our forbearance, our infinite patience, and our inability to draw conclusions?
Which detachment is never evident when discussing domestic political opposition. At that time everybody is flung into one great, unholy lump.
Interesting where some people locate their tolerance, and instructive.

1. There are moderate and peaceful muslims. There is no moderate and peaceful Islam.

2. The Army was PC before PC was.


Robb
US Army retired

Grobi, the lesson that American society as a whole must take from this is that political correctness can quite literally result in murder. Even the MSM is now discussing openly the numerous clear signs that the Major gave that he was a Muslim extremist--giving grad school presentations to Americans proselytizing for militant Islam; giving away all of his earthly possessions and wearing Muslim garb everywhere for weeks before his rampage; his posting on known Jihadi web sites in English.

So what did the Army do over the past few months? Well of course it trained him in the use of high-powered semi-automatic and automatic weaponry and promoted him to the rank of Major before shipping him off to Iraq, even as he was using the legal system to try to get out of the Army and his duty to his country and to the Army, which paid for his medical education.

Very sad that people are too politically correct, especially in positions of leadership, to do the right thing and to speak truthfully and objectively in these clear instances.

Tim - you guess right. I wouldn't change a word.

There are moderate and peaceful muslims. There is no moderate and peaceful Islam.

Or to put it another way, Muslims that don't advocate murder and mayhem are to Islam what Episcopalians are to Christianity.

Diversity should be the first post-mortem casualty of this atrocity.

I also affirm what Paul said at 10:16 a.m. Any Muslim member of the armed forces should at this point fully understand if his record is given special review to see if similar warning signs have been missed or deep-sixed. Let's remember, too, that enlisted men don't have ordinary freedom of speech anyway, and don't expect it. Heck, for that matter, people with plain old private jobs often know that what they blog about could cost them their jobs, so this should be true in spades of those in the military. What we should be doing is making it clear that if you go around saying the kinds of things this guy said, you will be cashiered so fast it will make everyone's head spin, and that reports of this kind will be taken very seriously. That would doubtless mean intensified scrutiny of the statements, record, and background of present Muslim members of the military and of Muslims who try to enlist. And that is just as it should be. Ignoring the mountain of evidence that Islam is not "just another religion" is at this point a matter of criminal lunacy. Unfortunately, we seem to be led by a bunch of criminal lunatics.

Gen. Casey's statement clearly means that in his ideological universe, diversity is an ultimate religious principle for which our soldiers should be willing to die and to which he is willing to sacrifice our soldiers.

Can't you all see that using the word 'Muslim' to refer to the Religionists of Pieces is *also* an expression of Political Correctness? Does anyone seriously recall encountering that word used as an English word prior to the mid- to late- 1980s?

We have had, for centuries, a perfectly good English word to refer to the Slaves of (the demon) Allah -- that word is 'Moslem.' We should use that word.

Grogi: Lydia, if the only thing you meant was that we shouldn't allow political correctness to run amok, I fullheartedly agree.
Any amount of political correctness at all is political correctness run amok. Political correctness startes with and depends upon, and requires ever more, dishonesty.

The Deuce:

Rim-shot. badum-CHING.

Or to put it yet another way: Muslims that don't advocate murder and mayhem are to Islam what William O. Douglas was to the American Constitution.

The shooter is, apparently, awake and talking to medical personnel.

The Chicken

Suppose I am skeptical of the idea that smoking causes cancer. I've looked at all the medical evidence but I am irrational and I just don't buy it. You think smoking does cause cancer, and you've long tried, unsuccessfully, to convince me to change my mind.

Now suppose that one day our mutual friend, who is a smoker, finds out that he has lung cancer. "Ah-ha!" you say to me, after we hear this sad news. "Isn't there something you should learn from this? Won't you now change your mind about whether smoking causes cancer?"

Well, no. The fact that one smoker got cancer really shouldn't change anyone's mind. Of course, I should already have changed my mind, since I'd already gotten conclusive evidence that smoking causes cancer. But with the news of our sick friend, that large pile of evidence hasn't increased.

Similarly: I assume you believe you've already got a mountain of evidence that Muslims in the military are a serious threat, and you think the public should already have been convinced by that mountain of evidence. Perhaps. But do you really think your mountain's size has been increased by this incident? (Compare with the murders pro-life activists have committed over the years. Are these incidents substantial evidence that pro-lifers are a serious threat?)

What you have here is a case that illustrates (what you believe to be) a well-established fact. That is not quite the same thing as new evidence of the already well-established fact.

(Disclaimer: I believe you're dead wrong if you think that Muslims in the military are a serious threat; I believe this this idea is dangerous and I hope it doesn't catch on; etc. But I'm not addressing that point here and I have no intention of changing anyone's mind about it.)

David, you are really scarcely worth talking to. What has come out here that is new is a mountain of evidence of *how totally crazy* our military is about Muslims, how no matter how nuts they are, and how loudly they proclaim this to the world, nobody does anything about it. This shows us that there could, for all we know, be _tons_ of additional crazies like this guy in our military right now, and we wouldn't know. Especially since Gen. Casey thinks the most important thing to preserve here is his god, Diversity, not the lives of our servicemen.

Some of us didn't realize it was quite that bad. But we've learned fast. The liberals like yourself evidently haven't.

We already knew that Islam is not a religion of peace and that if Muslims are to be in the military at all they need to be carefully screened. We didn't know the screening job being done was *this bad*.

And let me point out that if you irrationally still believe that Islam is a religion of peace, this ought to convince you _much_ more dramatically than one instance of a person who smokes dying of lung cancer shd. convince a skeptic. Because, you know, Hasan can _tell_ us his motives, and he has made them very clear, but a little light doesn't light up on the dying man's forehead that says, "This lung cancer caused by smoking."

Never try to argue evidence with an epistemologist. Especially when you're a liberal who has a problem with evidence.

By the way, there have been numerous Muslims interviewed, including one convert who was being "mentored" by Hasan right up until the murders, who have said clearly that what Hasan did was right, that they have no pity for his victims, and the like. They have cited verses in the Koran which, whaddaya know, do support what Hasan did.

What can I say? This is a clear expression of threat. There is no conjecture involved here. If liberals don't get it here, they are total kookballs.

I'm unsure how best to respond, Lydia, but I'll take a stab at it:

First, out military's tolerance of Muslims is only "totally crazy" if Muslims in the military really are a serious threat. (By contrast, if Muslims are in general no more dangerous than, say, 7th day adventists, then the policy of tolerance is pretty obviously not crazy.) So we're back at the same question: Do we have, in this incident, any new evidence that Muslims in the military pose a serious threat?

I don't think Islam is a religion of peace. But then again I don't think Christianity is a religion of peace, either. This is an irrelevant tangent. It seems obvious to me that there is no point in asking whether these religions are "religions of peace." It's like asking whether humans are a species of peace. Yes, sometimes. No, sometimes.

I agree that Hasan would tell us that Islam inspired these attacks. I also know that some pro-life murderers have reported that Christianity inspired their crimes. I don't consider either of these self-reports to be evidence that Muslims or Christians are by and large dangerous, or that tolerance of either Muslims or Christians is misguided.

Your advice not to argue evidence with epistemologists is absurd, obviously.

I still am unclear on what we are to have learned specifically from this incident.

I also know that some pro-life murderers have reported that Christianity inspired their crimes.

A mistaken interpretation of Christianity, perhaps, but not Christianity. Is Nidal, the gunman, misinterpreting Islamic teachings?

It is easy to prove that the pro-life murderers you cite are wrong in their interpretation of Christianity. Can you do the same for whatever Nidal claims about Islam?

The Chicken


David don't learn anything, stand frozen like Buridan's ass.

We have had, for centuries, a perfectly good English word to refer to the Slaves of (the demon) Allah -- that word is 'Moslem.' We should use that word.

They are Mohamedans, the word all the great men of the past use when referring to Muslims. They are indeed slaves of Mohamed, Allah in the Koran was Mohamed's own daemon.

Apologies. Nidal is the first name of the shooter. Hasan is the last name. I meant to use, Hasan in the above.

The Chicken

I still am unclear on what we are to have learned specifically from this incident.

Obviously.

Oh, and by the way, another instance of a smoker who dies of lung cancer is actually new evidence. But this is _more_ new evidence.

'Mohamedans,' or 'Mohammadeans,' or so on (however than name is spelled) are fine, and probably have a longer history in English than 'Moslems' does.

But 'Moslems' is easier to remember and spell.

And, as an added bonus, use of 'Moslem' will torque off those who like to see themselves as PC-enforcers almost as much as use of 'Mohamedan' or 'Mahometan' or so on and so on.

Just a few reactions to comments:

They have cited verses in the Koran which, whaddaya know, do support what Hasan did.

But of course we already knew about those verses in the Koran, and we already knew that some Muslims believe those verses justify violence. Whaddaya know? More old evidence.

It is easy to prove that the pro-life murderers you cite are wrong in their interpretation of Christianity. Can you do the same for whatever Nidal claims about Islam?

This is worth your attention: http://evolutionofgod.net/q/koran

another instance of a smoker who dies of lung cancer is actually new evidence.

Yeah, that's true. But you'll agree it is incredibly weak evidence -- not enough evidence to change anyone's mind, except those already very near the tipping point.

But this [i.e. the Fort Hood incident] is _more_ new evidence.

I am completely open to being convinced that the Fort Hood incident is significant new evidence of anything interesting.

Oh and one last thing...

David, you are really scarcely worth talking to.

Yeah, I know. You're sitting at your computer typing messages to someone you think is off his rocker. I'm sitting at my computer typing messages to someone I think is off her rocker. And we're both doing this voluntarily. We must really be a couple of weirdos!

David: the category "polytheists" can quite reasonably be interpreted to include Christians, according to Islamic tradition, because we worship a Triune God, and therefore very clearly "join other gods with God."

What I don't understand is WHY idiotic PC is in control of brass thinking in the military. Of the realms that one thinks susceptible to PC nonsense, surely the military ought to be rather low down on the list. Certainly academia is an abject slave to PC, and unions - tied so closely to the liberal wing of the liberal party - are under its thumb. One would have thought that the military, particularly a military which has been under Republican commanders-in-chief 20 out of the past 29 years, ought to be, if not a bastion of resistance, then at least a welter of differing views and stances. But instead we find a lockstep mantra of repression for any who might speak ill of a protected minority...WHY? How is it that this mentality can be so thoroughly in charge? Have the PC crowd intentionally infiltrated the military with the express intent of undermining resistance, while the forces of intelligence, common sense, tradition, and simple down-home orneriness fled without a battle? Or didn't even notice there was a battle going on? What gives?

Paul -- yes, I believe that interpretation is fairly widespread (among Muslims). But note the following:

A Muslim who believes Christians are monotheists will find no support for war on Christians in the Sword verse.

A Muslim who believes he is "in league" with Christians (as it seems Hasan was) will find a prohibition against war on Christians in the sword verse.

A Muslim who believes that the Sword verse only applies to a particular war that took place during the time of Mohammed will find no support for war on Christians in the Sword verse.

The point here is that there is ample interpretive wiggle room for pacifism in the Sword verse. This particular verse, therefore, does not unambiguously command violence against Christians, and arguably forbids it.

How can a Muslim believe Christians are monotheists, given that we worship Jesus of Nazareth?

Tony, I have a partial answer to your question, but it's only partial: The virus principle.

The virus principle says that wherever there are strong structures of authority, it is necessary only to infiltrate those structures, and the entire institution will be yours for the indefinite future.

You mention orneriness, common sense, and tradition. But it is my impression that ornerines and common sense are not much valued in much of the military, that discipline and obedience are much more valued, and that _real_ tradition went out the window quite some years ago to be replaced by phony, brand-new, PC "traditions" to which everyone has been required to adhere. Dissidence tends to be squelched.

People have complained about the _general_ bureaucratic foolishness of the military from time out of mind. I have letters home from WWII from a GI in which he talks about the mind-numbing waste of talent and time that he saw in the Philippines during that time and how difficult it was to get anything fixed or changed.

Now, take this rather rigid structure, with its vast potential for enshrining bad stuff as well as good, and bring in Democrat Presidents at spaced intervals who pushed the envelope: Carter and Clinton. The feminists became very much ensconced in positions of power in their years.

Now add the rule of the ratchet effect. This rule says that leftist policies are never really rooted out. Once put in place, they tend to stay in place, and the left moves on to demand more. Reagan and Bush, Sr., never fully reversed Carter's policies regarding the redefinition of combat and the utilization of women. W. made no attempt at all to reverse the still more radical policies of Clinton along the same lines. During all this time, the feminist agenda was acting as a solvent of military traditions and was ensconcing PC as a potential career-killer and as That Which the Guys At the Top Follow. General Casey, who has said that diversity would be a worse casualty of the Ft. Hood massacre than the massacre itself, was made chief of staff under George W. Bush. Let that sink in for a moment.

I think it's important not to be starry-eyed about the military. In a sense, military culture is always going to be about some set of ideas and ideals, and some positions will be beyond the pale. There will be less general freedom to think for oneself, to blow whistles, to challenge entrenched authority, and so forth, than in the civilian world. In many ways, this is necessary for discipline, morale, and unity. But it also means that if the wrong ideas and ideals get put in place, they are the very devil to root out, and they are unlikely to be challenged.

"Never try to argue evidence with an epistemologist. Especially when you're a liberal who has a problem with evidence."

Teach critical thinking much?

How can a Muslim believe Christians are monotheists, given that we worship Jesus of Nazareth?

The main difference between a Christian and a Muslim is that the Christian believes Christianity is true while the Muslim believes Christianity is false. But I don't see why Christianity would have to change from monotheistic to polytheistic the moment it turns out to be false.

Christians have a story to tell about how three persons amount to one God. That story either makes sense or it doesn't. Whether it makes sense or not has nothing obviously to do with whether Christianity is true.

So it seems perfectly possible, to me, for Muslims to grant that Christians are monotheists. And in fact very many Muslims do grant this.

Mr. Another Badger, David made a pretty dumb analogy, to begin with. To go on with, he utterly fails to understand that new, additional evidence doesn't become weak because other evidence is already overwhelming. He knows nothing about over-justification and mutual support. He also apparently fails to think of the psychological possibility that additional evidence, brought to the attention of a person who is being irrational, _might_ (we can always hope) make him re-evaluate all the other evidence he was previously ignoring. And he doesn't understand the difference in evidential force between a causal motive directly revealed to us by human actors and a physical cause inferred inductively by constant conjunction, marginally confirmed by an additional instance of conjunction, without (apparently) further evidence in the new case regarding underlying physical events.

Why should one debate someone like this on force of evidence? Look, I rarely pull rank. You will hear me repeatedly saying in scientific discussions here that I am a layman and not a scientist. You will hear me in legal discussions qualifying my statements by saying that I am not a lawyer and have just tried to get as informed as possible, as well as asking readers for more legal information. You will see me telling my philosopher blog colleagues that I don't know much about one of their areas of expertise.

But, yeah, I'm supposed to pay attention to how evidence works. And David's dumb analogy about smoking is a non-starter. I tried to hint at one of the ways it's a non-starter, and David didn't get it.

By the way, it's also pretty amusing that David should think he can argue that the Fort Hood massacre is "weak evidence" for the need to monitor Muslims in the military by making an analogy to a case where there is _strong_ total evidence and comparing himself to irrational people who deny that strong evidence. It kinda makes one's head spin.

A simpler answer, Tony, is that civilians really are in control of the military, and that Republican presidents have done little to stem the tide of PC, so of course it's becoming ever more entrenched. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

'Diversity' is an American "core value" in the actually-existing America of today, not seriously questioned by anyone in power. It is part of what our army fights for. To Casey, a man accustomed as an officer to thinking in terms of acceptable losses, the thought that we should turn our backs on it at the price of a few killed makes no more sense than giving up on democracy. So this is just going to keep happening because our leaders choose to let it continue happening because they have convinced themselves and most of us that the only alternative is Hitler.

Ah yes David, you refer to the pensive Robert Wright of Non-Zero fame, who as a good Darwinist manage to derive morality, decency, altruism and the love of beer and rainbows from the refractory base of a raw struggle for existence. We must listen to such a capable presdigitator when he expounds on the Koran! There are however only two modes in Islam dissimulation when weak, and utter ruthlessness when strong. Or as VI Lenin puts it in another context, when you encounter flesh push, when you encounter steel stop. This may be too much for some intellectuals to grasp as they trip over to apologise for Islam.

All through its bloody history, Islam has built a remarkable record of using the simple tactic of divide-and-rule to stun its dumbfounded victims. Further examples of which are being played even now right before our eyes.

As dumbledoresarmy, at Jihad Watch put it (in paraphrase):

With the religious of all faiths the Mohamedans say, look at us we are not like them atheists and scoffers, dumb cattle fit only for slaughter.
With the monotheists the Mohamedans say, like you we worship the One God unlike the polytheists with their vile and shameful gods.
With the Jews the Mohamedans say, we despise the Nasranis, idolators in the grip of jahaliyah, worshipping the son of Mary.
With the Christians the Mohamedans say, we are not like them Yahudi ben Zion Christ-killers, we adore Jesus the holy prophet.

Using such simple and transparent tricks the Mohamedans manage to flummox all and sundry.

[David] utterly fails to understand that new, additional evidence doesn't become weak because other evidence is already overwhelming.

OK, this is odd, because I thought I understood this perfectly well. I give up. Where do I show failure to understand this? (Apparently Lydia won't tell me directly, but maybe she'll tell Another Badger and I'll get a chance to listen in, or maybe someone other than Lydia will tell me.)

He knows nothing about over-justification and mutual support.

Sure I do! But what did I say to make Lydia think I don't?

additional evidence, brought to the attention of a person who is being irrational, _might_ (we can always hope) make him re-evaluate all the other evidence he was previously ignoring.

If the idea now is just that the Fort Hood incident should cause us to re-evaluate other evidence, I have no objection. But note that being led to re-evaluate other evidence isn't a form of learning. (I learn nothing from the post-it note that reminds me to review for a chemistry exam.)

he doesn't understand the difference in evidential force between a causal motive directly revealed to us by human actors and a physical cause inferred inductively by constant conjunction, marginally confirmed by an additional instance of conjunction, without (apparently) further evidence in the new case regarding underlying physical events.

Here, I believe, Lydia's talking (again) about how Hasan can tell us that Islam made him do it, whereas a person's lung cancer won't tell us whether it is caused by smoking. This is supposed to make for a significant difference in evidential force. Well, Hasan's declaration that Islam made him do it would certainly tell us something about why Hasan did what he did. But it's not clear how it would tell us anything we didn't already know about Muslims. We already know that some Muslims are inspired to violence by their religion; one more case doesn't change matters much. (Compare, again, with the pro-life murderers.)

it's also pretty amusing that David should think he can argue that the Fort Hood massacre is "weak evidence" for the need to monitor Muslims in the military by making an analogy to a case where there is _strong_ total evidence and comparing himself to irrational people who deny that strong evidence.

The example was supposed to show generosity to my opponents (which is a virtue I notice is in somewhat short supply around here). You think you already have strong total evidence that Muslims are a threat, right? Well, I didn't (and don't) want to take issue with that contention, so I just grant it, and I constructed my example accordingly.

It seems obvious that someone making anti-American statements on websites, along with other worse things, should be discharged from the military. Perhaps Muslims, along with some other subgroups, should be profiled on this and screened more stringently.

So it seems perfectly possible, to me, for Muslims to grant that Christians are monotheists. And in fact very many Muslims do grant this.

Ri-i-i-igt. It's also perfectly possible for an atheist to believe in pink faeries on motorcycles. But what do they *actually* believe. I have never, ever known a Muslim to consider Christianity to be monotheistic. Anyone? David, have you actually known Muslims who believe this, or are you just makin' stuff up and junk? Even if you do find the odd one, what is the number? I'd bet next month's paycheck that it's an insignificant number.

It's utterly laughable to me that someone would attempt to judge the Muslim interpretation of the Koran by imposing one possible interpretation from an outsider. Parsing text by itself completely ignores the belief system of the subjects. It's a lot like the atheist dorks who try to tell Christians what they believe by reading the Biblical texts. Utterly laughable.

First, out military's tolerance of Muslims is only "totally crazy" if Muslims in the military really are a serious threat.
Lydia didn't say that the military's "tolerance" of Muslims was totally crazy. She said the military was totally crazy about Muslims. And the evidence is undeniable at this point that there were many, many signs that Hasan was dangerous and had it in for America, that many people in the military were aware of it, and that they chose not to do anything about it, and even allowed him to be promoted to positions of prominence, because he was a Muslim. And that is blatantly, obviously crazy, and 13 people are dead because of it. It would be even crazier not to change that behavior now that we've seen the results. At what point do you folks allow reality to intrude?
David, have you actually known Muslims who believe [that Christians are monotheists], or are you just makin' stuff up and junk? Even if you do find the odd one, what is the number?

I don't know how many Muslims do and don't believe this, but the Wikipedia entry on Islam has this sentence:

The Qur'an calls Jews and Christians "People of the Book" (ahl al-kitāb), and distinguishes them from polytheists.

I'd be interested to know what most Muslims believe about this, so would welcome credible info, if anyone has it.

Deuce -- you describe a bunch of things we should learn about this incident from this incident. For example, we have learned that people ignored warning signs that Hasan was going to do something crazy, etc. I don't deny that this incident provides much evidence about this incident. But I don't see how one murderous Muslim teaches us anything significant about how we should behave toward millions of other Muslims. If there is a general sense in the military that you should assume officers are non-crazy even when they go around saying crazy things, that might well be a bad thing, but it isn't shown to be bad just because one of the officers going around saying crazy things turns out to be a homicidal maniac.

What I've proposed is that the military brass must make it clear that they are changing the crazy PC climate and that concerns about dangerous individuals will now be taken seriously, with no groups protected from scrutiny. I've also proposed that Muslims applying to the military be subject to special screening and that Muslims in the military now should have their records and statements examined to see if similar warning signs have been overlooked. Hasan's actions _amply_ justify such moves. Even if the majority of Muslim soldiers now in the military are no threat, we now _know_ that even if they did make statements indicating threat, it might well have been covered up. Therefore, a reevaluation is amply warranted, and Muslim soldiers should not resent this in the slightest.

The reason people don't understand why PC becomes so entrenched is because "political correctness" is itself a phrase that obscures the institutional rationale for things. PC is nothing more or less than advanced, institutionalized liberalism. I have come to dislike the phrase "political correctness run amok" very strongly. It suggests that just a little bit of PC would be sensible, or that PC is just an extreme version of something basically rational, which it's not. You can't identify and combat "political correctness run amok," because it's a meaningless way to describe the phenomenon.

The phenomenon is liberalism, and the reason Western society is in the death grip of political correctness is because PC is an expression of the death grip that liberalism has on all our institutions--the media, the military, the universities, the mainline churches, etc. All of them are PC because all of them have, in ways unique to the character or charism of each, adopted the essentials of liberalism. In particular, the belief that erasing distinctions--and particularly categories as they apply to human beings--is the highest possible calling in life, somehow residing at the core of the institution's mission, is the liberal ideal to which all We3stern institutions now subscribe.

What Larry Auster sometimes calls the non-discrimination principle, that is, the notion that discrimination is the single greatest possible evil and that all goods are tertiary to the good of advancing the liberal ideal of non-discrimination, really is the ruling principle of our society. Recognizing this fact makes every single instance of PC madness fully comprehensible. It also explains why everyone knows by instinct the seemingly byzantine demands of PC, even when they aren't written down anywhere. Being based on such a simple principle, people are able to instantly and without reflection apply it to any given situation at all. Finally, recognizing this fact also explains why people are so hopelessly confused by it all--they accept the basic premises of liberalism, and they largely know precisely when and how to cringe before its demands ("Not that there's anything wrong with that!"), but they nonetheless are baffled when they see institutions behaving in accordance with the raw, anti-rational radicalism of the non-discrimination principle. They fail to identify liberalism as such as the source of the problem, being basically liberals themselves, so they blame it on some hazy thing called "political correctness." Moreover, they realize that this is an expression of something that they basically accept, and cannot repudiate utterly, so they say that it is somehow "run amok."

If people would simply call it what it is, that is institutionalized liberalism, we could at least hve a debate on the real causes of such insanity and decide whether we really do think the sacrifice worth it.

Deuce -- you describe a bunch of things we should learn about this incident from this incident. For example, we have learned that people ignored warning signs that Hasan was going to do something crazy, etc. I don't deny that this incident provides much evidence about this incident. But I don't see how one murderous Muslim teaches us anything significant about how we should behave toward millions of other Muslims.

I'm trying to be patient here, but really, it's hard not to see this as a deliberate effort not to learn anything, as illustrated in the C&H comic above. I just got through pointing out that what kept the powers that be from following up, in any way whatsoever, on the warning signs they knew about was that this guy was a Muslim. So what we can learn about other situations is clearly that we need to change the policy that prevents us from following up on warning signs because someone is a Muslim. You know, so that like, if somebody else shows similar warning signs, and they're a Muslim, we don't let it stop us from taking care of the problem before they kill people? What does it teach us about how we should behave towards other Muslims? That we should stop tiptoeing around them for fear of offense, which again is the behavior that allowed Hasan's actions to be overlooked.

And that's for starters. It ought to be pointed out that, despite the relatively small number of Muslims in the American military, and in the country in general, that they are disproportionately responsible for these sorts of attacks. In fact, that appears to hold worldwide, not just in the military. So a person who isn't totally brainwashed into preferring an illusion of equality over reality might consider the reality that Muslims have a higher probability of terrorist attacks than other individuals. And a realistic person might conclude that if you want to prevent terrorist attacks, it would make sense to scrutinize groups that have a high probability of committing them more than groups that have a low probability.

Lydia,

It amazes me that someone who calls herself a conservative would attack the intelligence community for what was a law enforcement problem. Once again, the FBI failed in its mission, and the intelligence community, which statutorally cannot easily communicate with law enforcement for reasons similar to why we have the Posse Comitatus Act, will take the heat. The NSA cannot legally monitor most of his communications, and the CIA cannot legally track a U.S. citizen who lives on U.S. territory. You ought to be grateful for the fact that those agencies, which would be tools of unparalleled tyranny in the wrong hands, won't bend the rules.

Besides, it's not like the Army didn't already have grounds to get rid of him. One of the easiest ways would have been to take all of his comments defending suicide bombers at face value, label him a security threat and submit him for a counterintelligence polygraph as a condition of continued employment.

Sage M. - I think that's very well said: the phrase "political correctness" has probably long outworn its usefulness.

The only criticism I'd make is that I think it's far too generous to the left to take at face value their supposed dedication to anything legitimately describable as a principle of "non-discrimination." In fact, the left systematically, relentlessly, and shamelessly discriminates - against whites, against males, against Christians, against Southerners, against the working class, etc.

I think we need some other way to sum up their worldview. Hmmm.

David, my personal experience is that they do not consider Christians monotheists. Yes, they have a "respect" for "people of the book," but that is an entirely different thing. So we have now established in this thread that you really have no idea what you are talking about. (You don't know of any Muslims who believe what you suggest, and you have no information on numbers of Muslims who do, and yet you present it as a challenge to members of a discussion. What a laugh. Nothing like ignorance and Wikipedia to substitute for, you know, knowledge and stuff.)

Mike T, the stuff about trying to contact al Qaeda was an update. _Of course_ the military had independent grounds for removing him. I'm not even sure "law enforcement" is the right term there to apply to the work of the military in keeping nutballs out of its personnel, but whatever. As for whether intelligence should even be able to communicate with law enforcement, well, that evidently doesn't bother me as much as it bothers you, and no, I don't consider that this would amount to using the military for civilian law enforcement. There's a big difference in my mind between sharing information and bringing in the army to arrest people or rampage about the streets or whatever. Where federal, state, and local laws are involved, of course the civilian executive branch with jurisdiction will have to decide what to do with the information it receives. But the idea of having intelligence offices that have to keep their information to themselves and cannot tell those people who might do something about it is absurd on its face. I doubt, however, that this thread is the place for debating that theoretical point.

I think we need some other way to sum up their worldview. Hmmm.

Equality and non-discrimination are attack weapons against the white Christian West. Any weapon will work, as long as the attack is pressed. One day it is "free speech", another day it is "freedom", another day, "equality". There may be a day where the remnant of Christian European Civilization will be best attacked by embracing a violent totalitarian religion. The cultural Marxists will do it in a New York minute, because like Satan they hate God and Christ.

Culture does not depend upon, and certainly does not equal, race.

Sure, the multiculturalists hate "the white race," but it ain't really the race they're hating, it's the culture you've inherited which they hate.

I am not entirely "white," though casual observation would not reveal it to most (and I have relatives even less white than I), but I am a member of the culture and society you and I are wanting to preserve from the leftists.

Also, I'm a sight more intelligent than the average "pure white" person. Should I think myself better because my intelligence is greater than the average of you "pure-breds?"

Steve Burton: Sage M. - I think that's very well said: the phrase "political correctness" has probably long outworn its usefulness.
Yeah, kind of like the phrase "media liberal bias" has become shopworn.

Break 'er up, boys. No threadjacking to arguments about race.

Culture does not depend upon, and certainly does not equal, race.

So, how come there is still a separate black culture in this country? We've been waiting 400 years for them to assimilate, but it's not happening.

The only criticism I'd make is that I think it's far too generous to the left to take at face value their supposed dedication to anything legitimately describable as a principle of "non-discrimination." In fact, the left systematically, relentlessly, and shamelessly discriminates - against whites, against males, against Christians, against Southerners, against the working class, etc.

I think we need some other way to sum up their worldview. Hmmm.

The better word might be "equality". The Left perceives whites, males, Christians, etc as being unfairly "ahead" in some fashion, and discriminates against them to bring them down to what they believe to be everyone else's level. They're against discriminating against some views, cultures, preferences, etc as worse or less desirable than others, not against discriminating against individuals to achieve "equality" between all views, cultures, preferences, etc.

Of course, like any ideology with an equality fetish, the contradictions quickly force them to conclude that while everyone and everything is equal, some things are more equal than others.

L.McGrew Break 'er up, boys. No threadjacking to arguments about race.
Odd that you only *now* (now that I've said, "This is wrong," meaning both morally and factually) notice the race-talk. How "evenhanded."

There is no such thing as "white Christian culture" -- Christianity is not *about* either race or ethnicity.

There is a Christianized culture, to which most persons in these shores belong; but that culture is, and will always be, a distinct thing from Christianity.

David, my personal experience is that they do not consider Christians monotheists. Yes, they have a "respect" for "people of the book," but that is an entirely different thing. So we have now established in this thread that you really have no idea what you are talking about. (You don't know of any Muslims who believe what you suggest, and you have no information on numbers of Muslims who do, and yet you present it as a challenge to members of a discussion. What a laugh. Nothing like ignorance and Wikipedia to substitute for, you know, knowledge and stuff.)

Well, no. If "personal experience" is the standard, I have actually talked about this topic with one Muslim student, some years back. But when I'm talking with people like you, who are so obviously angry and incredulous, I just assume they won't take my word for it if I claim someone told me about this. Anyway, one Muslim student's claim that he considers Christians to be monotheists is not significant in a world containing 1.5 billion Muslims. (This goes for your claim about "personal experience," too.)

I also seem to recall Reza Aslan talking about this in one of his Bloggingheads appearances. I'm too lazy to dig around to find it, but you can find all of his appearances here, if you're motivated:

http://bloggingheads.tv/search/?participant1=Aslan,%20Reza

Reza Aslan has always seemed to me to be a source of insight about this "clash of civilizations" stuff, so even if you don't find anything about the polytheism issue, you might still get something worthwhile out of watching some of his diavlogs.

Anyway... Talking to you guys is pretty entertaining but it's really just an addictive waste of time. So I'll probably stop posting comments for now. But I'll continue checking in to the blog from time to time. So keep standin' athwart that Jihad, everybody! You've been doing it for years and it's still a source of amusement.

I'm an equal opportunity thread monitor on this, Ilion, believe it or not. (And, no, that isn't an invitation to you to start arguing with me about my putative fairness.) Suburban Yahoo is also required to heed my warning. I'm trying to give him a temporary break for posting at 2:17, as it was only three minutes after mine, and perhaps he didn't see it. But to _both_ of you, I say again, I will not have this thread turned into an argument about race. Can it, or have your irrelevant comments deleted.

The Deuce, thanks for your comments. They are interesting and insightful, as always, in my memory. I wish you could find a pseudonym that makes it easier to relate to you, though. :-)

David, it's pretty pathetic that you find it "amusing." I actually hope for you that you aren't a victim yourself, because I wish you no ill, but it makes me a little sick that you find it "amusing" for people to be standing against the jihad when it has so recently and so dramatically come to our shores.

My understanding is that Hasan did not murder any black or gay people, which means that his murderous spree lacked diversity. The fact that a veil-less Christian woman put him down means that Hasan will be teased endlessly at the next mosque book burning and honor killing potluck and prayer meeting.

You insult me (personally), and when I point out the insult, you insult me again. How odd.

For the purposes of brevity I'll still refer to "Political Correctness" in my off-the-cuff opinion of the advancement of PC in the military.

PC opinions are are rarely held in isolation. Rather, they accompany other PC opinions.

So if one PC opinion becomes mandatory, that will favor those PC about other things and disfavor PC skeptics.

Obviously, the arrival of PC idiocy towards Islam builds upon the bureaucratic coalition formed around other PC opinions, like the integration of women in the armed forces.

The PC compromise policy Don't Ask, Don't Tell denies homosexuals' increased risk for subversiveness and other problems. This cleared from military leadership the old guard who would have been comfortable in evaluating security risks based on group behavior and "stereotypes."

About Islam specifically, there was surely much "PC" propagandizing in the first Gulf War. The Saudis tried to proselytize our troops, for instance. And wasn't US involvement in the Balkans accompanied by the lionization of oppressed Muslim freedom fighters?

Those who were mid-level military leaders then are high-level leaders now. Maybe we can blame this on Clinton after all.

Tony writes:
"One would have thought that the military, particularly a military which has been under Republican commanders-in-chief 20 out of the past 29 years, ought to be, if not a bastion of resistance, then at least a welter of differing views and stances."

The Republican leadership and punditry often has no interest in rolling back PC, and wouldn't know how if they wanted to. So often they just point out liberal hypocrisy and pose as the truly progressive party.

By contrast, leftists are born bureaucrats who love "five-year plans" and can advance their agenda with talent even under a hostile administration.

Ilion: I, for one, greatly appreciate your contributions here - but you *can* be a bit thin-skinned at times. Anyway, I'm sensitive to Lydia's concerns about thread-jacking, so, if I can find a moment, I'll put up a new post where you & I & Suburban Yahoo & anybody else so inclined can argue about race to our hearts' content. Fair enough?

David: I've followed the exchange here between you, Lydia & others with some interest. While I think that a few of the responses to you have, arguably, been overly acrimonious, I wonder if you can appreciate why that might be, in the larger context, here.

Way, way upthread you asked "what we are to have learned specifically from this incident."

Well, here's what I learned: I learned that "diversity," or "multicultural sensitivity," or whatever else you want to call it, is now, quite literally, the highest value, surpassing innocent life itself - a sort of ethical trump card - not only among our political & media elite, and not only among the usual suspects who have long run our education & arts & entertainment (into the ground) - which is no news to anybody...

...but even in putative hotbeds of reaction like the military and the FBI.

The learning experience for me, here, was not the massacre itself. I mean, another Muslim fanatic, another atrocity. So what else is new?

No. It was General Casey, the G*d-d*mn Chief of Staff of the United States Army, going on TV talk shows and suggesting that the slaughter of more than a dozen innocent people under his command matters less to him than the promotion of his Great God Diversity.

There is no hole in Hell hot enough for that man.

That's what I learned, specifically, from this incident.

How 'bout you?

I don't want to argue about race (what is there to argue about, anyway?).

Suburban Yahoo made some good points – and tainted his whole post by making it about “the white Christian West.” Let us call his post an exemplar of “Austerism” (whether or not Suburban Yahoo has ever actually read the VfR blog).

Fifty-five minutes later, I offered a pointed criticism of that specific invalid, false, and anti-Christian view exemplified in the phrase “the white Christian West.”

Four minutes after that, Mrs McGrew played an analogue to the moral equivalency card.

Would Mrs McGrew have said *anything* had I not said what I said? I, for one, do not believe she would have – I’m not talking about her sensitivity to thread-jacking, I’m talking about her insensitivity to “Austerism.”


Ilion, bag it. I haven't insulted you. I usually like your comments. I've liked nearly every comment you've ever made here at W4. Call me an anti-thread-jacking fanatic if you want.

Passing comments are one thing, arguments are another. Arguments become sub-arguments and sub-threads. I made my warning in response to you not because of some sort of bias against your position (actually, you don't have any idea what I think about any of these issues), but precisely because you offered a "pointed criticism" of a view that came out merely in passing in another comment and that has nothing to do with the topic of this post or thread. "Pointed criticisms" are the stuff of discussion and debate on a particular topic. I don't want that particular topic debated on this thread. My blog colleagues can attest that I am _very_ sensitive about thread-jacking and that I try _very_ hard to run a tight ship. This has nothing to do with moral equivalency. I haven't made any claim of moral equivalency. I don't even know what you could be talking about. I have told you and S. Y. not to have a debate about the topic of race on a thread that isn't about race. Heck, if anything, it's usually the "racialists," the people on the other side from you, who are obsessed and want to argue about the topic at every turn, even when it is off-topic. I've run into that problem elsewhere and, yes, I have demanded that the thread-jacking stop from that side. Now it's you doing it. Stop it. I've made my request clear. I like you as a commentator, but when you're on my threads, you play by my rules. Don't act like a kid arguing about whether you're arguing or not. Please.

And while we're at it, I'm not going to debate whether I have insulted you or been fair to you or engaged in moral equivalency or whatever. That's just more childishness. I don't know what you are upset about, because all I did was to make a simple and reasonable request. But I do have access to a delete key, and I will enforce my rules here from here on out, so be warned. Please rein in your desire to argue every point and meta-point, because I'm not going to allow it.

[After repeated requests not to hijack the thread, in this comment commentator Ilion, whose contributions I usually value but who appears to have a "thing" about the subjects of Lawrence Auster and race, insisted on trying to continue the meta-debate concerning why I said what I said, what I think about Auster, etc., etc. I had warned him expressly that I would not allow any more of such tangents. Therefore I have deleted the content of this comment. LM]

I don't think we learn anything from this. If 9/11 didn't show people, another much smaller atrocity isn't going to show them, either. General Casey's comments are infuriating, but surprising only in their bluntness. Diversitolators are usually more evasive. They act and legislate as if diversity is more important than the occasional massacre, but they aren't so gauche as to say it outright. But this is all so utterly predictable, because it's already happened so many times. Over the years since 2001, I've gone from anger, to despair, to benumbed apathy. Nothing is going to change.

All that shows, though, Cyrus, is that those of us capable of learning from what happened before this have over-justification for propositions like, "Muslims in the military are potentially dangerous," "Islam is not a religion of peace," and the like. There are people out there who _should_ learn from this, though, which is why I titled my post as I did. If they aren't just dead, this poke should wake them up. No, it won't, I'm afraid, as commentators on this very thread show.

But to tell you the truth, and at the risk of sounding like a rank populist, I think this has the potential to wake up the man on the street. The leadership is sitting on it. The entrenched leadership, represented by Casey, will not let any learning take place here, won't change anything. But if you ask Joe the Plumber (speaking figuratively), I think he might say, "That's it. I've had it. We need to rethink this whole Muslim thing." In the popular mind, there _are_ events that act as the straw that broke the camel's back. Sometimes that can be a good thing. But that natural process of popular outrage and demand for change is not going to be allowed to happen here.

Trying to speak as objectively as possible, things would be different if the country were a lot smaller. But the inertia is terribly hard to overcome in a governmental system this big and this unwieldy.

Well, Cyrus, you were there before me.

I hope that you're wrong. I fear that you're right.

Joe the plumber doesn't matter. Every lever of power is controlled by people who agree with General Casey. The hardhats/MARs/proles aren't going to turn the tide. We may as well ask what French peasants thought of Louis XIV. We hardly know, but it didn't really matter. To the extent that the man in the street thinks Islam is incompatible with Western societies, he only proves his moral unfitness, and will justify, nay, necessitate, the imposition of ever more diversity, until he changes his ways or goes away.

While I think that a few of the responses to you have, arguably, been overly acrimonious, I wonder if you can appreciate why that might be, in the larger context, here.

The acrimony doesn't bother me. I've read enough of this blog to know you don't leave "liberal" comments here and expect a welcome parade. Of course, if I thought people here are really as angry as they pretend to be, it would be a little scary, not fun at all. But I believe the outrage is mostly faked and mostly harmless.

That's what I learned, specifically, from this incident.

How 'bout you?

Your comment made me see a mistake in my thinking. I concede that we can learn a lot from this incident by observing how people like Casey respond to it. Public remarks and policy changes can tell us about military culture and about what people embedded in that culture believe and desire.

I still maintain (and it sounds like you agree) that we haven't learned much about whether Muslims in the military pose a serious threat.

And of course I disagree with most of what you said about diversity and so on. My sense is that these kinds of attacks from Muslims in the United States are exceedingly rare. For example, I suppose you're more likely to be killed by your spouse, or even a lightning bolt, than a rampaging Muslim. And I think that if we follow Lydia's advice and throw all the Muslims out of the military, or even if we adopt a policy of treating Muslims with extra suspicion, this would only cause all sorts of bad things to happen, including more violence. People deeply resent being treated differently because of their religion (or race, gender, etc.), and one sure-fire way to make people more violent is to do things to them that they deeply resent. I think the recent experience of Europe shows us what happens when the Great God Diversity is displeased.

Anyway, I don't expect any of that last paragraph to be convincing, but there it is anyway.

[After repeated requests not to hijack the thread, in this comment commentator Ilion, whose contributions I usually value but who appears to have a "thing" about the subjects of Lawrence Auster and race, insisted on trying to continue the meta-debate concerning why I said what I said, what I think about Auster, etc., etc. I had warned him expressly that I would not allow any more of such tangents. Therefore I have deleted the content of this comment. LM]
You needn't worry; I'm done with you, I try not to waste my time.

Well, gee, Ilion - and after all that trouble I went to, on your behalf.

Bummer.

David - thanks for your interesting reply.

Yeah, this is a conservative (possibly even reactionary) blog. But, still - there's no excuse for rudeness.

"I believe the outrage is mostly faked and mostly harmless."

Totally wrong on the first point, totally right on the second.

"I still maintain (and it sounds like you agree) that we haven't learned much about whether Muslims in the military pose a serious threat."

I take it, then that you agree with General Casey that there's nothing 'specially serious about the odd ten or twenty servicemen, murdered in their blood.

"...of course I disagree with most of what you said about diversity and so on."

Well, yes - of course.

"I think the recent experience of Europe shows us what happens when the Great God Diversity is displeased."

Well, no - of course not.

The "Great God Diversity" *displeased* with "the recent experience of Europe?"

Eh.

Hey Steve --

The "Great God Diversity" *displeased* with "the recent experience of Europe?"

I guess my line here would be that intolerance of diversity prevents integration, and disintegration breeds disadvantage, resentment, and violence. And it happens that many European cultures are intolerant of diversity, largely because they've been ethnically homogeneous in their recent history. But I could be talked out of all of that. I haven't thought about this with any care.

I take it, then that you agree with General Casey that there's nothing 'specially serious about the odd ten or twenty servicemen, murdered in their blood.

I'd say this incident certainly deserves Casey's attention, whereas he probably shouldn't even be notified if ten or twenty servicemen are separately killed by their spouses. But suppose for a moment that I'm right to think incidents like this are extremely rare and couldn't be prevented except maybe by instituting Lydia-style policies that do more harm than good. Then it seems military decision-makers' efforts should be focused on quelling panic and getting back to business as usual (i.e. prosecuting crazy wars).

I don't want to ruffle any feathers here, but nevertheless, here goes.

Casey said: “Speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers and 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."

I don't think he *necessarily* is committed to the view that people harassing Muslims would be a greater tragedy than the murder of twelve people. Nor do I even think he's committed to the view that a policy of expelling all Muslims from the military would be a greater tragedy than the murder of twelve people. I think, instead, that one of the following two views is his:

(1) to function well in a world full of new challenges, the military needs more diversity, so they can think of more solutions to the more variegated problems that confront them. Consequently, if the military decided that diversity of its ranks was a problem, it could lead to a significantly less effective military.*
(2) Casey doesn't think that Islam was the cause of this murder spree. Instead, he thinks something else--say, the military not noticing obvious warning signs, or putting too much psychological stress on its soldiers, etc.--is the cause of Hasan's mass murder. We should devote energy to solving problem X, which is whatever is the real cause of Hasan's murdering. If we wrongly thought Islam was the cause of Hasan's murders, then not only would twelve people have died, but we would have learned the wrong lesson from their murders. In other words, no good at all would come from their murder, but only more tragedy. Thus, it's not that lack of diversity is a greater tragedy than 12 dead; it's that 12 dying and our learning the wrong lesson is a worse tragedy than 12 dying and our learning the right lesson.

I think he believes (2).

*--I heard a lecture from a general today touting this very line, though she didn't relate it to the Fort Hood massacre.

Also on the same subject, here is an alternative account of how to respond to Fort Hood, written by liberal Marc Lynch:

http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/09/al_qaedas_master_plan

My policy recommendations of a) telling people we're horrified and sorry for the atmosphere of fear of offending Muslims that has prevented their reports from being made or taken seriously and that we'll change that atmosphere, b) reviewing the records of Muslims in the military now that we _know_ warning signs could well have been ignored would "do more harm than good"? Oh, well. Then let's just not do anything. There's nothing we can do, after all.

Bobcat, if Casey believes 2, then he's a dangerous, dangerous, dhimmi fool who shouldn't be responsible for the safety of a stray dog, because the reason warning signs were ignored was that Hasan is Muslim and the warning signs were tightly connected to his being Muslim. But Casey is sending a message that he is determined not to change the atmosphere which led directly to the ignoring of warning signs, an atmosphere in which Muslims are privileged because diversity is so important. If you don't believe he's sending that message, then you are not listening.

Yes, my feathers are a bit ruffled. Philosophical pedantry that attempts to give some sort of benefit of the doubt to a crazy statement like Casey's in the outrageous and horrifying situation in which we now find ourselves is a highly problematic sort of wilfully blind philosophical pedantry.

Lydia,

Mike T, the stuff about trying to contact al Qaeda was an update. _Of course_ the military had independent grounds for removing him. I'm not even sure "law enforcement" is the right term there to apply to the work of the military in keeping nutballs out of its personnel, but whatever. As for whether intelligence should even be able to communicate with law enforcement, well, that evidently doesn't bother me as much as it bothers you, and no, I don't consider that this would amount to using the military for civilian law enforcement. There's a big difference in my mind between sharing information and bringing in the army to arrest people or rampage about the streets or whatever. Where federal, state, and local laws are involved, of course the civilian executive branch with jurisdiction will have to decide what to do with the information it receives. But the idea of having intelligence offices that have to keep their information to themselves and cannot tell those people who might do something about it is absurd on its face. I doubt, however, that this thread is the place for debating that theoretical point.

The FBI is knee-deep in this failure. That is why I call this a law enforcement failure. It is also damning for the FBI because the FBI is actually one of our leading intelligence agencies. It's the only major agency that straddles the fence between law enforcement and intelligence gathering.

You need to think this one through. There a lot of legal questions that have to be answered like how the CIA could report how it knew about Hassan (if it did) without revealing classified sources and methods in a military court. If the target gets into court, these are serious issues which actually may do more harm to national security than would happen if the intelligence agencies err on the side of caution in not communicating with law enforcement.

Ideally, the military intelligence agencies (DIA, NRO, NSA and NGA) and the CIA would be able to easily just tap on the shoulder of the FBI and say "heads up, bad stuff is about to go down." It is, unfortunately, a lot more complicated than that.

Ilion, I was unable to respond at your blog because I don't have Blogger login. You'll be missed.

I guess my line here would be that intolerance of diversity prevents integration, and disintegration breeds disadvantage, resentment, and violence. And it happens that many European cultures are intolerant of diversity, largely because they've been ethnically homogeneous in their recent history.
European ethnic homogeneity is perhaps more apparent than real, but to the extent that it exists or existed, it was the product of concerted and frequently very heavy-handed state action to stamp out diversity by imposing a nationalist mold on disparate regional and confessional identities. We see this in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Britain, and to a great extent, the United States in the period from the end of the Civil War to the 1960s. Diversity was, rightly so, perceived as a source of friction and an obstacle to administration. It still is. 'Diversity' is really a term of art for a globalizing project intended to make traditional identities and customs safe for modernity, or failing that, destroy them. It is the red giant phase of the European state. 'Diversity' is to real diversity what war is to peace.
Ideally, the military intelligence agencies (DIA, NRO, NSA and NGA) and the CIA would be able to easily just tap on the shoulder of the FBI and say "heads up, bad stuff is about to go down."

I'm glad we agree at least that far, Mike T.

I certainly agree that there are huge amounts of egg on the face of the FBI. I am very angry about what is coming out here and am even angrier that no one in a position to do anything seems to be angry. It's like watching a train wreck in action.

There a lot of legal questions that have to be answered like how the CIA could report how it knew about Hassan (if it did) without revealing classified sources and methods in a military court. If the target gets into court, these are serious issues which actually may do more harm to national security than would happen if the intelligence agencies err on the side of caution in not communicating with law enforcement.

C'mon, Mike. Use some creativity, some ingenuity. If you don't want the actual, real-life information to be used, solely because the method of collecting that information is an important national security secret, then AT LEAST allow the CIA or whoever put up a semi-anonymous tip to the FBI: "We think you ought to look under X rock" when looking under X rock is something the FBI can do in ordinary operation without a search warrant or asking a judge pretty please may I? There is nothing wrong with this approach.

Buying into the failed theory that you can't use that real-life, actual information in a civil setting because the FIRST origin of it was in a national security setting is just plain nonsensical - it's just giving in to liberal defeatism.

Like Lydia, I cannot cut Casey any slack over this, especially not over failing to recognize and state that they need to re-think how promoting diversity through its negative motivations hinders national security.

Bobcat, if Casey holds option 2, doesn't think that Islam was the cause of this murder spree. Instead, he thinks something else--say, the military not noticing obvious warning signs, , then he is certainly out to lunch. I really don't want people in charge of the military who cannot logic-chop their way out of a paper bag, and that's what option 2 is. There are both active and permissive causes at play in a complex event. At one and the same time there may have been a military not noticing warning signs, (which condition merely ALLOWS the event to continue toward reality), there was ALSO the positive motivation of Islamic radicalism actually motivating the perpetrator. If you cannot tell the difference between a condition that passively allows a person to act wrongly and (an evil, murderous) motivation pushing the person to act wrongly, you have no business being in charge of half a million men.

Tony,

C'mon, Mike. Use some creativity, some ingenuity. If you don't want the actual, real-life information to be used, solely because the method of collecting that information is an important national security secret, then AT LEAST allow the CIA or whoever put up a semi-anonymous tip to the FBI: "We think you ought to look under X rock" when looking under X rock is something the FBI can do in ordinary operation without a search warrant or asking a judge pretty please may I? There is nothing wrong with this approach.

The CIA and military intelligence agencies already have the means to communicate that a threat is entering the United States to domestic law enforcement. The problem is that not only do they not have jurisdiction over someone like Hassan (an American citizen on American soil), but if he were to go to trial, it would likely not be before the FISA court owing to the fact that he was, until the attack, probably classified as a security risk and nothing more by the FBI. In other words, he was likely regarded as no different from some skinhead in the service who tries to contact the Aryan Nations or KKK, not a legitimate target of an investigation that would take him to the FISA court.

As I said, the fault here is entirely on the part of the FBI and the Army. They practically worked together to make this happen. And again, as I said, the FBI is the CIA's counterpart on domestic intelligence gathering. That's why I so harshly condemn them here.

Hi Lydia,

First, I don't know whether you were saying I was willfully blind, or that Casey was willfully blind.

That said, I do have one question: why do you think the military wouldn't give him the discharge he asked for?

On another note, some people have noted that according to some mainstream readings of Islam, Muslims are not allowed to kill fellow Muslims. If that's indeed true, and it seems plausible that it is, then certainly *that* question should be asked of all Muslims currently serving and all who intend to serve, and it's hard for me to imagine how even liberals would deny that.

That said, I do have one question: why do you think the military wouldn't give him the discharge he asked for?

Either a stop-loss or his renewal period hadn't come up. For someone who is educated by the military, the period of service is generally around 8 years. I've **heard** that it can be as long as 12 years depending on how expensive the degree you want is.

Bobcat, I think he should have been out on his ear. I gather the military wouldn't give him the discharge because people don't just get discharged for the askin'. "So long and thanks for all the fish" isn't supposed to wash, especially when "the fish" include a very expensive education. _Of course_ they should have gotten rid of him, but that's because he was a risk. It isn't because the military has some kind of bizarre duty to spend tons of money on people and then discharge anyone who asks to get out of his agreement to be deployed because, well, now he doesn't want to be deployed. It would be extremely stupid to start saying, "Anybody who doesn't want to be deployed must be discharged, and if someone isn't and commits an atrocity, it's the military's fault for not discharging automatically upon request." We need to recognize that the fault of the military was not recognizing the signs that he was a security risk. The fault of the military was not granting an automatic discharge because somebody doesn't now feel like going overseas after umpteen years and dollars of military investment.

But frankly, if there's evidence that some group of people are going to try to pull _that_ kind of nonsense--milking the military for what they can get and then pulling every string, including passive-aggressive "worries" that they might be "driven" to violence--to get out of being deployed, that's _another_ reason not to allow them in in the first place. This has implications for women in the military as well, given widespread reports of deliberate pregnancies on the part of females to try to get out of deployment.

On another note, some people have noted that according to some mainstream readings of Islam, Muslims are not allowed to kill fellow Muslims. If that's indeed true, and it seems plausible that it is, then certainly *that* question should be asked of all Muslims currently serving

Good point. Although, the suicide bombers who go to blow up a funeral procession of Muslims don't seem to see it that way. They seem to think that they can kill fellow Muslims as long as they do in in pursuit of holy jihad or something - in that case the 'good' Muslims who die will applaud the bombing (kind of passive suicide bombers themselves) and the 'bad' Muslims who die had it coming to them anyway.

Sage M:

What Larry Auster sometimes calls the non-discrimination principle, that is, the notion that discrimination is the single greatest possible evil and that all goods are tertiary to the good of advancing the liberal ideal of non-discrimination, really is the ruling principle of our society.

Sage, since liberals obviously discriminate big-time (affirmative action being just the most obvious example of many), and since they explicitly justify that discrimination, you must have some esoteric definition of "discrimination" if its negation is "the ruling principle of our society." Care to explain how liberals are always supporting discrimination when "nondiscrimination" is supposedly their ruling principle?

Aaron, you can ask that question in the new thread above, set up by Steve Burton, wholly based on Sage's comment. But of course, Sage is not committed to the proposition that liberalism is coherent. Far from it. And remember, the "principle of non-discrimination" need not merely be a principle about procedure. It can also be a principle about outcomes--namely, that in all outcomes things must look as the liberal believes in blind and immovable faith they _would_ look if no one were discriminating. When reality does not comply, the liberal turns to affirmative action to fudge the experiment. But again, I think this would best be discussed in the thread devoted to this very subject.

This has implications for women in the military as well, given widespread reports of deliberate pregnancies on the part of females to try to get out of deployment.

The simple short-term solution to call their bluff (as much as I hate abortion) is for the military to offer them an abortion 30 days before the deployment order (if 30 days notice is possible). If the woman gets an abortion for a non-medically necessary reason, she should be court-martialed and at least dishonorably discharged, if not imprisoned. With the offer of an abortion beforehand, it would be hard for feminists to say that it infringes on "a woman's right to choose" beyond what is normally expected of soldiers of either gender (deliberately incapacitating yourself before deployment is a military legal offense for both genders).

Note: I'm speaking hypothetically here, nothing more. You know how strongly I am opposed to abortion.

Mike, I thought perhaps that the simpler "solution" to women in the military is to treat them like men: Same squads, same boot camp, same showers, same barracks, same physical standards to meet, and same requirement to control themselves regardless of what their hormones happen to be doing today. The mind boggles at the results, but one SURE result would be many fewer females in uniform.

I was just reading about some of the funerals taking place today for these soldiers. One report quoted an Army officer saying the mantra "we may never know what happened that day . . ." Good thing I wasn't related to the that soldier and attending his funeral service . . . How insulting.

Wow, Beth. Not having TV channels, I've missed that particular mantra. Nothing like global historical skepticism to help us avoid uncomfortable conclusions. We have lots of eyewitness testimony about what happened that day. What in the world does he think he's talking about?

I didn't see Tony's and Mike T's comments: Tony, your idea is what we were all told it was going to be like. Same for firemen and cops. "Oh, no lowering of standards, dear me, no. But if some woman just _happens_ to be 6' 5" and built like an Amazon, why _shouldn't_ she be allowed to put out fires and fight bad guys?"

Well, actually, there are lots of answers to that, beginning with the fact that it's unnatural and wrong for men to be asked--indeed, required--to treat women like men, no matter how tall the women are. But aside from that, it was all a lie. From the beginning the standards have been lowered. They were _never_ willing to let the chips fall as they may, and they never will be. So just say no from the beginning. Any proposal to "just let them in and then see if they can cut it" is a bait and switch. They never mean it.

I saw it in an AP news report that popped up when I opened Yahoo this afternoon. It described several of the servicemen and women and one of the funerals, in which that line was spoken. Enrages me . . .

Lydia, yes, I wasn't actually suggesting that we try the experiment, because it would be unfair and damaging to the men as well as bad for the women. I get that. My only point (such as it was, maybe not very worthwhile) was that if they really had insisted on that kind of standard, there would be so few women in the military that the problem would be relatively small.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.