Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Michelle Malkin: Right But Still Wrong on Ft. Hood

Just caught a good post at Pam's Coffee Conversation, "When Michelle Malkin's Right, She's Right." Pam's addressing Malkin's comment on Fox News regarding the Fort Hood tragedy during which Major Malik Nadal Hasan, a U.S. soldier, licensed psychiatrist, and Muslim went on a shooting spree, killing 12 and wounding 31 at Fort Hood in Texas, Nov. 5.

Pam allows that Malkin is right on the point that the military missed some "red flags;" however, Malkin thinks the military missed danger signs because it worships the "false god of diversity," which, if you know anything about Malkin, you know she's probably lumping all kinds of beneficial diversity into that criticism and her sympathizers will most likely interpret her coded language to mean the military has gone astray by recruiting people from different ethnic groups and religious sects.

At that point, Pam, while asserting that what Malkin says sounds like an insult to our military men and women, delivers incisive commentary that Malkin misses a bigger red flag regarding army recruitment policies, which is not diversity but a "rush to war." She reminds her readers of loose recruitment policies under George W. Bush that lulled recruiters into turning blind eyes to felons, racists, and gang members entering our armed forces all in the name of increasing troops quickly.
So, if the military was willing to overlook gang members, overt racists and felons, then it wouldn't come as a surprise to me if they may have overlooked an Islamic jihadist or two. To be clear, I said "IF".

Of course, Ms. Malkin may not read the San Francisco Chronicle or be a fan of Paula Zahn but there were other signs that the recruitment demands placed on the military by the Bush administration's rush to the war in Iraq and lack of an exit strategy would have serious consequences. Where was her concern then?

Oh yes, I forgot. Ms. Malkin was busy labeling anyone who expressed a concern about the war as a "traitor", "a coward" and "an enemy sympathizer." Read Pam's full post here.
Pam is referring to the 2006 San Francisco Chronicle article she quoted about unacceptable criminal types joining the armed forces and a 2007 Paula Zahn news report along similar lines.

I recall reading a Salon article in June, "Neo-Nazis are in the Army now" and the same concerns at the Southern Poverty Law Center in July, "SPLC Urges Congress to Investigate Extremism in the Military," regarding a letter it sent to Congress.
In 2003, Fogarty was sent to Iraq. For two years he served in the military police, escorting officers, including generals, around the hostile country. He says he was granted top-secret clearance and access to battle plans. Fogarty speaks with regret that he "never had any kill counts." But he says his time in Iraq increased his racist resolve.

"I hate Arabs more than anybody, for the simple fact I've served over there and seen how they live," he tells me. "They're just a backward people. Them and the Jews are just disgusting people as far as I'm concerned. Their customs, everything to do with the Middle East, is just repugnant to me."

Because of his tattoos and his racist comments, most of his buddies and his commanding officers were aware of his Nazism. "They all knew in my unit," he says. "They would always kid around and say, 'Hey, you're that skinhead!'" But no one sounded an alarm to higher-ups. "I would volunteer for all the hardest missions, and they were like, 'Let Fogarty go.' They didn't want to get rid of me." (
In an email thread this summer about the military's loose-recruitment standards, I said:
It's like hiring a nanny who you know for a fact really wants to seduce your husband and take over your family, and so, you take her in anyway, sit her down and tell her all your family secrets, what bedtime stories the kids like most, your favorite cooking tips, special bill management system, and what gets your husband off in bed, and then you pay her while she learns your household because she does windows and good help is hard to find. ... Insanity. (Nordette aka Verite in email thread)
And the insanity is even stranger when you consider what the SPLC had to say in its letter.
... since 1994 the military has discharged more than 12,500 servicemembers simply because of their homosexuality. "It seems quite anomalous that the Pentagon would consider homosexuals more of a threat to the good order of the military than neo-Nazis and other white supremacists who reject our Constitution's most cherished principles," said Mark Potok, director of the SPLC's Intelligence Project, which monitors extremist activity. (SPLC)
Seems some of our military policies are bass ackwards, and so Pam is right that Malkin is right on one point, somebody's missing some red flags, and really, Congress should look into that.

For the record, I think Hasan didn't get the closer scrutiny he deserved because he is a doctor.

1 comment:

Pamela Lyn said...

Thanks Nordette for the feedback and for sharing the other excellent articles on this topic.

At some point I hope that the good folks in Washington realize that sometimes we have to look back and learn from past mistakes before we can all move forward.