Ignoring Infiltration

It was Friday afternoon that I finished the draft of "The Left and Terror," at which point I logged on to waste a little time poking around the Net, something I am very good at. Imagine my shock at being confronted with the news from Fort Hood at that moment. Such coincidences tap into sources deep in the subconscious -- it was as if my own writing had somehow called Nidal Malik Hasan into existence. It was a disturbing sensation, one that served to curtail analysis of the event. I merely updated the piece and sent it on in.

Developments over the past days have amply confirmed the thesis offered in "The Left and Terror." What would a serious response to such an atrocity look like? We'd see swift activity aimed at halting any further such incidents. I am not talking about a "witch hunt" -- the term so beloved by mass media -- but a careful investigation followed by decisive action where necessary. There are undoubtedly more such individuals currently active in the military, not to mention other branches of government. We can only hope that they're dealt with before yet another massacre occurs.

Is that the response we've gotten? Not as far as I've been able to see. What the media (not the best guide in the world, granted) has presented is a world away. Obama has confronted the crisis with yet another serving of Hope and Change rhetoric. We shouldn't "jump to conclusions," says O., giving no notion of what those conclusions might be. He goes on to praise the "diversity" of the armed forces, as if the fact that Hasan the Assassin's victims came from different backgrounds somehow makes things better. It's evident that as in much else, Obama believes that such phraseology amounts to magic words that force bad things to go away. And you know, there just may be something to that. (The original Hasan the Assassin, by the way, was Hasan ibn al-Sabbah, the "Old Man of the Mountain," who founded the Ismailite sect of Islam. He kept his Muslim enemies at arm's length through the use of a drug-conditioned corps of killers -- the Hashishans -- from which the term "assassin" is derived. Funny how names often resonate, isn't it?)

We move on to Home Defense secretary Janet Napolitano, who is overseeing the country's protection by traipsing around the global conference circuit. From thousands of miles away, she has stepped in to assure that there will be no "anti-Muslim backlash" in the hamlets and settlements of her benighted and primitive country. Good to see she's right on top of things.

Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey concurs, at least as far as forbidding any "speculation" concerning Hasan's faith. (It sounds as if he doesn't want anyone to figure out that he's a Muslim.) Gen. Casey, you may recall, made his mark by watching Iraq deteriorate under his command while stubbornly opposing the surge strategy proposed by Gen. David Petreaus. That goes a long way toward qualifying him to deal with potential infiltration within his own ranks.

Though it hasn't yet hit the U.S., the "backlash" interpretation is all but universal overseas, being featured in papers from the tabloid Daily Mail to the redbrick Guardian. Of course, there has never been a "backlash" against Muslims or Arabs in this country, nor is there any sign of one occurring now. Even after 9/11, uncontrolled acting out was minimal. The sole victim that I can recall was an unfortunate Sikh who ran afoul of an unbalanced (and badly informed) man. If any other incidents took place, we'd be sure to have heard of them daily from such outfits as CAIR, not to mention Napolitano and Dear Leader.

But why confuse ourselves with facts? The narrative has been set: the problem involves not killers shooting innocents for pathological reasons, but nonexistent mobs running the streets of America, waving ropes and looking for anyone wearing a dishdash. It's not Islamists who are responsible, but us: America and the people who inhabit it. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it can be cut down, trimmed, reshaped, and refurbished to fit anything. Here, it has been reworked to serve as the cover for the murder of thirteen servicemen and the maiming of thirty-odd others. And we're supposed to sit back and nod and say, "Obama knows best. If anything's wrong, Obama will tell us."

It will turn out to be the army's fault. They simply didn't "adapt" themselves to Hasan's needs. They required him to do things. They insisted on sending him to Afghanistan when he didn't want to go. All those things they never require of Christian, secular, Jewish, or (Vishnu forbid!) Hindu soldiers. Much will be made of the fact that somebody once keyed his car. (Always a good excuse for a massacre -- just ask all those lefties I shot after somebody keyed my vehicle for displaying the wrong bumper sticker.) When it happens again -- as it will -- we will hear cries for more "understanding," for the armed forces to adapt to changing circumstances, for removal of crosses on military bases, for the elimination of Jewish officers in units into which Muslims might be transferred. Obama will give a speech about it. Secretary Napolitano will attend a series of conferences. As for Casey...well, who listens to retired generals anyway?

There's an interesting photo taken from just after the German surrender in World War II. A G.I. is relaxing in a wrecked German room, laughing as he leafs through a copy of Mein Kampf. The caption stated that he'd have been "court-martialed for sedition" if he'd been seen doing that only a week before. Perhaps that was taking it too far -- very few if any American troops would ever have been tempted to take Hitler's ideas seriously. But would the same thing be taking it too far today? World War II was not a war of infiltration -- but ours manifestly is. Eventually, after another dozen, or hundred, or ten thousand murders, we will wake up to that fact.

Until then, the Fort Hood massacre stands as one more signpost on the road to the next catastrophe.