It's not a "defeat" defeat

Mark Steyn on the extended spectacle of the prosecution of the Fort Hood shooter:
Major Hasan says he’s a soldier for the Taliban.  Maybe if the Pentagon were to reclassify the entire Afghan theater as an unusually prolonged outburst of “workplace violence,” we wouldn’t have to worry about obsolescent concepts such as “victory” and “defeat.”  The important thing is that the U.S. Army’s “workplace violence” is diverse.  After Major Hasan’s pre-post-traumatic workplace wobbly, General George W. Casey Jr., the Army’s chief of staff, was at pains to assure us that it could have been a whole lot worse:  “What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty.”  And you can’t get much more diverse than letting your military personnel pick which side of the war they want to be on. 
* * * 
Unlike the Zimmerman trial, Major Hasan’s has not excited the attention of the media.  Yet it is far more symbolic of the state of America than the Trayvon Martin case, in which superannuated race hucksters attempted to impose a half-century-old moth-eaten Klan hood on a guy who’s a virtual one-man melting pot.  The response to Nidal Hasan helps explain why, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, this war is being lost — because it cannot be won because, increasingly, it cannot even be acknowledged.  Which helps explain why it now takes the U.S. military longer to prosecute a case of “workplace violence” than it did to win World War Two.

6 comments:

Grim said...

“What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty.” And you can’t get much more diverse than letting your military personnel pick which side of the war they want to be on.

True. We have finally achieved ideological diversity: we now grant commissions in our armed forces to our actual enemies.

I wonder how Allah feels about oathbreaking, though. There's no way he could have taken the oath of office 'without purpose of evasion,' as it requires.

douglas said...

Taqquia- perfectly o.k. under Mohammed's rules.

Grim said...

That concept only exists in Shi'a jurisprudence, though. I don't think he's a Shi'ite. Do you know that he is?

Eric Blair said...

I'm inclined to think he (Hassan) doesn't know *what* he is--other than bat-shit crazy.

I see, on the streets of my city, various American blacks wearing those Saudi man-dresses, and so help me, a few who have dyed their beards henna, which is some sort of deviant Pashtun tribal thing, but these guys think it is some intergral part of the religion. What it is, is fashion.

They no more know what they're really doing other than trying to proclaim to themselves and others that they are different.

Ymar Sakar said...

Diversity Casey. Some of us have not quite forgotten that bit of phrasing he used.

Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic factions in the US allied with the Left, have their own justifications for deception. Hassan can use any number of em, he has his pick.

douglas said...

"...exists in Shi'a jurisprudence..."

Originated and was promoted mainly in, but there appear to be uses of the doctrine amongst Sunnis, even back during the Spanish Inquisition.

Besides, we have spies too, right? Would anyone on our side during wartime consider their deceptions wrong?