« Carl Menger on Societal 'Transformation' |
Blog Home Page
| 'The future is Cao' said GOP House Leader Boehner »
November 9, 2009
Casey's 'concern' (updated)
Echoing my thoughts and I believe the thoughts of many Americans, Contentions' Jennifer Rubin responds to Army Chief of Staff General George Casey's "concern" about a "backlash" against Moslems in the U.S. military as a result of the Fort Hood massacre:
Casey should be concerned if his organization was asleep at the switch and fell victim to a political correctness that clouded common sense. We should be concerned that the head of the Army now seems nervous about candidly discussing what occurred.
To be clear: it is the ultimate red herring, a straw man of gargantuan proportions, to suggest that those pointing to Hasan's motives and announced intentions ("I am going to do good work for God
") are suggesting that Muslim soldiers as a group are untrustworthy or suspect. No, there is no "backlash" in the works. What there is, and what elite opinion makers should recognize before the public's fury builds, is that ignoring signs of Islamic-fundamentalist-inspired animus toward America will get people killed. It has. And it will again unless and until we stop tip-toeing around the obvious link between a murderous ideology and murder.
I suppose that given who is the Commander in Chief, hewing to this politically correct red herring will assure his position is safe. But it shouldn't in my book. It's apparent to me that he cares more about himself and his career
than he does for the men and women under his care.
So who's nuttier?
Or the guys who say "Hey, let's have this fellow counsel our traumatized veterans and then promote him to major and put him on a Homeland Security panel
Or the Army Chief of Staff who thinks the priority should be to celebrate diversity
, even unto death?
Or the president who says we cannot "fully know
" why Major Hasan did what he did, so why trouble ourselves any further?