Military Madness

19 November 2009

– by Mike Murray

The U.S. Army has changed a great deal over the years. And much of that change has not been for the better. When I served (during the 1970s), career soldiers repeatedly told me that “this isn’t the Army” they originally joined. Their implication was that the Army had transformed itself into something they neither recognized nor completely approved of.

During my own hitch, things changed even more. I vividly recall the day in 1973 on which my unit was summoned to an Equal Opportunity Office meeting. During the EOO presentation, attendees were informed of the following: Henceforth, complaints against white personnel would be treated in a new way. Specifically, all white servicemen and servicewomen accused by non-white comrades of discrimination would be presumed to be culpable. It would be our responsibility to prove that we were not.

We were incredulous. And we asked: “Isn’t that counter to the American system of justice – one that presumes innocence?” EOO representatives reminded us that, as members of the military, it was only the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that applied. And that the UCMJ had been amended to address past wrongs. The assumption was that previous complaints had not been given proper (i.e. serious enough) consideration – and that the new policy would provide some degree of “remedy.”

To white members in the audience, it seemed more like political correctness run amok. That, and some cockeyed attempt to make the recruitment of non-white soldiers a little easier. We failed to see how punishing us (by assuming the worst about our behavior and our motives) made up for past injustices – real and imagined. In any case, the change in policy stunk to high heaven. And every sensible person knew it.

I was reminded of that decades-ago Army experience when I learned of the slaughter at Ft. Hood, carried out by Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Major Hasan is a radical Islamist (don’t bother arguing the point – only a fool would characterize him in any other way). Hasan is a murderous traitor who believes that U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq are – by virtue of combat assignments that could require them to wound or kill Muslims – war criminals.

At the time of his induction into the Army, Hasan swore an oath of loyalty to the United States. One that, it is now plain to see, he subsequently viewed as secondary to his sympathy for jihadists who mean Americans harm. Hasan had for years received abysmal performance reviews from superiors. Moreover, he provided extensive evidence – prior to his bloody rampage – of his troubling views. Even worse, officials knew for some time that Hasan (or someone using his name) had posted treasonous messages online, and that he might even have tried to contact members of Al-Qaeda.

All of which was largely ignored (or not properly acted upon, at the very least) by Army and / or intelligence community officers. Apart from the trial of Hasan, investigations into the many ways in which federal authorities dropped the ball – failings which directly led to injury and death – need to be conducted. Decency demands that heads roll. Careers need to come a screeching halt in some cases; in others, criminal charges might even be appropriate.

But, most troubling of all in this mess has been the reaction of governmental officials. Consider the televised statement of Army Chief of Staff General George Casey, issued soon after Hasan’s massacre: “As horrible as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

Say what? Worse than the slaughter of innocents would be the loss of diversity? Was General Casey freaking kidding? Was he really contending that it is preferable that troops under his command be injured and killed to a drop in recruitment from within any one demographic group? General Casey is damned lucky that I was not his superior officer when he made that revolting statement – one that implied that preserving “diversity” is more important than preserving life. Because, if I had been his superior, I’d have immediately relieved him of his duties (and taken steps to bust him down in rank).

But, in all probability, the sentiments Casey expressed were not his own. More likely, General Casey was persuaded (ordered?) to issue commentary in keeping with the tone and tenor set by President Barack Obama – who said we should not “rush to judgment” in the matter of Major Hasan. (It is disturbing to many that Obama, himself, “rushed to judgment” in the matter of the Cambridge police officer – who had only made an arrest. But that, in the case of a cowardly assassin, the President contended that conclusions should not quickly be arrived at. Decide for yourself to what degree race and religion played roles in Obama’s contradictory assertions.)

Recall that President Obama for long months had no time for a sit-down with his senior commander in Afghanistan (to discuss overall strategy and a request for increased troop strength) – even as he found time each week to meet with the head of the Service Employees International Union, and to play countless rounds of golf.

Before that, Obama sought to cut off funding for the medical treatment of discharged soldiers who were suffering from severe battlefield injuries. (He was quickly disabused of that ridiculous notion by angry veterans.) Then came the Ft. Hood incident, following which Obama sent his Homeland Security chief out to caution Americans. Not about the dangers posed by Islamist extremists who might do them harm, but about potential discrimination against Muslims.

All of which leads me to conclude that the most pressing problems confronting America’s Armed Forces lie at the very top of the chain of command. The situation is one that uniformed personnel cannot directly address, lest they be charged with insubordination. It is, instead, a matter for voters to “remedy” in 2012. God help us if we don’t.

Those old-timers I met during my tour of duty were right. The Army (and the entire U.S. military, for that matter) is definitely changing. For the worse. Our troops deserve better than the leadership with which they are currently saddled. So does our nation.

Berea Pundit