20 January 2010: On 15 January, 2009, the U.S. Military released its 86-page report “Protecting the Force, Lessons Learned from Fort Hood,” an independent review by the Department of Defense of the causes behind the November 5, 2009 massacre by Islamic terrorist insider Nidal Malik HASAN. Thirteen were murdered, plus one unborn child and another 43 were injured.
Omitted from the report was any direct reference to Islam, Islamic terrorism, or the motives of HASAN, which were clearly influenced by his beliefs or interpretation of the Muslim ideology.
These obvious omissions were explained by two of the report’s authors, former Army Secretary Togo West and former Navy’s Admiral, Vernon Clark, who spoke to reporters last week when the report was released. According to the investigators, they didn’t “drill down into HASAN’s motives.” Any person of reason would be compelled to ask why motive was not a factor in this investigation, when it must be considered as one of the primary factors in any normal investigation.
The reason is obvious and became abundantly clear from the minute Barack Hussein Obama addressed the nation on the day of the massacre. To address HASAN’s motives would require a level of honesty about the Islamic ideology this administration is unwilling to discuss: true believers in fundamentalist Islam cannot legitimately serve in our armed forces due to a conflict of ideological interest.
The fact that the authors intentionally omitted any doctrinal based assessment of the killings should be an indictment of not only the authors, but of our current administration.
To purposely omit the Islamic motivation that was the sole basis of HASAN’s murderous rampage is not only disingenuous, but traitorous as it places our armed forces at risk for future killings, sabotage, and treason. Therefore, the report is either a clear exhibit of our senior leadership’s knowledge deficit pertaining to the ideology of enemy we are fighting, or illustrates just how deeply entrenched the enemy really is within our military infrastructure and political bodies of policy and oversight.
Perhaps even more disturbing than the reports omission of “Islam” or “radical Islam” within the report, the authors broadly imply that adherents to all religions are equally influenced to the possibility of radicalization. Recommendation 2.7 therefore suggests that Department of Defense (DoD) should “Promptly establish standards and reporting procedures that clarify guidelines for religious accommodation.” To argue in favor of this possibility is to completely ignore that Islam is unique among all other religions as its fundamental doctrine requires its adherents to wage war against non-Muslims or unbelievers, a fact that is not a hijacking of the faith, but mandated by the Qur’an and Hadith that is currently supported by every school of Islamic jurisprudence[i].
Yet another disturbing recommendation is contained in section 3.8 of the report. The authors also recommend a policy directing the Department of Defense to “review the need for DoD privately owned weapons policy,” somehow suggesting private gun ownership by members of the most heavily armed organization in the world might have been a contributing factor to the Fort Hood massacre. The fact that this subject was even given consideration should be disturbing to every individual concerned with their Second Amendment rights and suggests an agenda well above the scope of this investigation.
To deny or fail to address our enemy’s motivation and their own stated doctrine is unacceptable and will only embolden their will and strengthen their abilities of infiltration. To incorporate all other religions and to state the need to review private gun ownership of military personnel into the Fort Hood threat assessment has more serious overtones of a shadowy agenda that is at war with democracy.