Terrorism - by any name

It is striking how far some in the media and government will go to avoid squarely recognizing the motivations of Major Nidal Malik Hasan in his murderous rampage at Ft. Hood, Texas, last week.

Surely, no one could discern what those motivations were immediately after the assault that killed 13 soldiers. But in the days that followed, a picture did emerge, yet there was still a strange inability among many pundits and decision makers to openly see and discuss it.

A similar blindness prevailed after the apprehension of John Allen Muhammad, who was executed this week for sniper attacks in the Washington, D.C., metro area that left 10 dead in 2002.

Take this line from an Associated Press report on Muhammad’s execution and the courtroom testimony of his teenage accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo: “The motive for the shootings remains murky. Malvo said Muhammad wanted to use the plot to extort $10 million from the government to set up a camp in Canada where homeless children would be trained as terrorists.”

As terrorists for what purpose? There was no further mention of the ideology that motivated Muhammad and Malvo.

No mention of some of the other telling testimony that Malvo offered in court. Malvo said Muhammed was driven by hatred of America because of its “slavery, hypocrisy and foreign policy” and his belief that “the white man is the devil.”

Malvo’s jailhouse drawings are pretty revealing as well, with captions such as “Islam unite rise!” and “We will kill them all, jihad!”

So it really isn’t as murky as the AP suggests. And the picture that has emerged on Hasan’s motivations at Ft. Hood isn’t murky either, despite the determination of some to tip-toe around his now well-documented religious views.

Dr. Phil, the celebrity psychologist, suggested it might have something to do with a “tremendous degree of stress” in the military associated with an active war in Afghanistan.

“I think he’s probably just a nut case,” A Newsweek writer said.

But what about Hasan reportedly shouting “Alahu Akbar!” (the Islamic terror salute) as he started his shooting rampage. And what about him giving a bizarre PowerPoint presentation to supervisors and colleagues about threats the military could encounter from Muslims within its ranks who object to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Or the fact that he attended a northern Virginia mosque that was also attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists and is headed by an imam who recently praised Hasan as a “hero” for his actions at Ft. Hood. And there’s the revelation that Hasan had attempted to make contact with al-Qaida leaders in recent months.

Unbelievably, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey had this to say: “I think the speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And what happened at Ft. Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.”

That encapsulates the root of the problem that led to the Ft. Hood massacre — political correctness, and the need to avoid offending Hasan, trumped what should have been intuitive, connect-the-dot disciplinary action from Hasan’s superiors.

His colleagues repeatedly reported their concerns about him, but nothing was done.

Here’s what one of Hasan’s former classmates at the Uniformed Services University had to say: “There were definitely clear indications that Hasan’s loyalties were not with America ... The issue here is that there’s a political correctness climate in the military.”

Certainly, we don’t want to see a backlash against Muslims, but Gen. Casey should have a greater priority than handwringing about “the greater tragedy” of harming diversity.

If there are others in the U.S. military with views similar to Hasan’s, they at least deserve some serious scrutiny, and it should be possible to respond to any obvious threats without waiting for bloodshed.