Diana West reports that a ceremony honoring one of the civilian victims of the Fort Hood massacre the presiding general said that we may never be known why the massacre happened:
“Although we may never know why it happened, we do know that heroic actions took place that day,” Brig. Gen. Joseph DiSalvo said at the ceremony Monday afternoon in presenting the Secretary of the Army Award for Valor to Joleen Cahill, his widow. “He will forever be a source of inspiration.”
As West observes:
In honoring Cahill’s courage, the general balked at its significance in Islam’s war on the West. This omission takes nothing away from Cahill and his courageous, bold response to the horrific assault. It does, however, wrongly release the nation from its debt to him. In treating Hasan’s rampage as no more purposeful than a flood or a cougar attack, the general renders Cahill’s ultimate sacrifice to the most personal level; exemplary, admirable, but of no further consequence beyond the scene, outside the circle. This is morally wrong. It was the general’s duty to place Cahill’s death in perspective, to impress upon the rest of us that he died not only for his fellows, but in defense of our liberty, which is under jihad attack.
If Gen. DiSalvo wants to understand why the Fort Hood massacre happened, he only needs to revisit the 2007 powerpoint presentation by Major Nidal Hasan while he was stationed at Walter Reed. As he explained in his presentation (slide 11), killing believers (i.e. Muslims) places Muslims serving in the military in a precarious position of violating Quranic passages (slide 12) condemning Muslim US service members who kills fellow Muslims to hell. Muslim soldiers killing non-Muslims is apparently not a problem.
In the very last slide of the presentation entitled “Recommendations” (slide 50), Hasan warns: “Department of Defense should allow Muslim Soldiers the option of being released as ‘Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.” And when Hasan warned of “adverse events” if Muslim soldiers weren’t allowed out of the military, he had already defined exactly what he meant by “adverse events” (slide 13): murder (Sgt. Hasan Akbar), espionage (Capt. James Yee), desertion (Cpl. Waseef Ali Hassoun) and refusal to deploy (Sgt. Abdullah William Webster). So there is not the slightest bit of mystery why Major Hasan resorted to murder and carnage to express his point: he had already warned the Army that it was one of his options according to his understanding of the “Koranic World View”. It’s just that our military, who has refused to look at the Quranic justifications for jihad and terrorism across the board since 9/11, had no way to understand what he was saying because they have blinded themselves.
As Bill Gertz at the Washington Times reported in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre, two of my colleagues and I had warned the Army leadership about the potential for such an attack from within the ranks in January 2008 – nearly two years before anyone had ever heard of Major Hasan. They didn’t listen to our warning and those killed at Fort Hood was the price that was paid. Now that Gen. DiSalvo has said we will never know what inspired the Fort Hood massacre, the institutional blindness that plagues our military to the jihadist threat can not be said to be a failure of imagination, but a willful dereliction of duty. Whose blood will be required to pay that price?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member