Posted by
Andrews on Saturday, November 07, 2009 10:57:44 AM
It is always interesting to see the media resort to their pat explanations of events. If there is a tragedy in the military it is because of the war. If someone dies of cancer, it used to be time to talk of environmental threats and corporate greed, though now it seems more likely to elicit complaints about "our failing health care system". And, of course, any economic downturn always brings stories of CEO greed and the "failures" of the free market.
More fun than listening to the press using the same boilerplate explanations are those times when circumstances show just how senseless those facile explanations are.
For example, as soon as the Fort Hood story broke the press began telling tales of the stresses of combat and how the war was "taking a toll" on soldiers. It didn't matter that the shooter had seen no combat, he was going to a combat zone, had treated soldiers who had been in combat, so Bush was to blame. Without "this senseless war of choice" none of it would have happened*.
Then reality responded. In a tragic turn of events, Ft. Hood was followed almost immediately by another shooting in Orlando. And again, the individual had no connection to war, soldiers, or combat. So, unless we are willing to postulate that somehow George Bush is to blame for his spree, I think we must confess that workplace shootings, be they on military bases or in civilian companies, have a variety of motivations, and that to blame them on the war is absurd. Yes, this shooter may have been reluctant to enter a combat zone, but to blame Bush for the way an obviously unbalanced individual responded to a stress is a bit of a stretch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
* As always, when a Moslem is involved the question of whether it was some sort of terrorism arose. No, despite claims by some in the media, it is not "bigotry". No more than the fact that in the 1970's and 1980's any explosion in England immediately raised questions of IRA involvement. Of course it now seems that this is, at most, as case where his Islamic identity aggravated his existing grievances. I can't say for certain that he was not tied to any groups, but from all reports it seems most likely that he was not. Then again, it does seem that his religion allowed him to feel even more of a victim and fueled his beliefs of being put upon and persecuted. However, were he not a Moslem, I am sure he would have found other excuses. It sounds as if he was inspired more by a dangerous mindset than any other factor. In his case Islam was likely more a pretext for violence than the primary motivation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTSCRIPT
One thing that struck me as bizarre was a quote in
an article on the Army missing warning signs:
The FBI reportedly investigated whether he was behind
the inflammatory comments left on a website under the handle "NidalHasan."
It would seem to me that connecting Nidal Hasan with the screen name "NidalHasan" might not be all that difficult. Kind of like if someone were investigating someone from Riva MD with the name Andrew and a last name starting with S, it would not be all that hard to connect to this blog. It doesn't sound as if Mr. Hasan was making much of an effort to conceal his identity, so how hard did the FBI have to work to connect him to these "inflammatory statements"?