The high cost of ignoring threats like Hasan

Paul Sperry:

Why did the US military ig nore the clear warning signs that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the suspected Ft. Hood shooter, had embraced radical Islam -- and thus become a danger to all around him?

It wasn't an oversight, it was policy -- one the Pentagon has been doubling down on ever since 9/11.

This summer, Hasan was overheard cheering the shooting death of a Little Rock Army recruiter by a Muslim. His patients complained about him proselytizing about Islam. He gave his nationality as "Palestinian" even though he was born in America. He apparently blogged about the glory of suicide bombings.

His superiors put up blinders to all these red flags because Hasan -- who wore traditional Islamic robe and kufi and prayed five times a day -- practiced the "religion of peace." And they're not supposed to make a connection between that religion and terrorism, even as they prosecute a war on Islamic terrorism.

The Pentagon has made well-publicized moves to show the military does not equate Islam with terror, and is making efforts to accommodate more Muslims in the military, whose ranks now exceed 15,000. It recently dedicated a new Muslim prayer center at Quantico, commissioned the first Muslim chaplain at the Air Force Academy and inaugurated the first Muslim prayer room at West Point.

Good and decent Muslims certainly serve admirably. But how does the military know which Muslims will put allegiance to country ahead of allegiance to Allah as interpreted by radical Islam? A conflict obviously exists for soldiers like Hasan -- and for Sgt. Hasan Akbar, the Muslim convert who in 2003 fragged commanding officers at a military camp outside Iraq, killing two and wounding 15 others.

...

It is interesting that at an airport, all threats are taken seriously whether they are meant as a joke or not. But when similar threats are revealed by people like Hasan little is done to deal with them and they are largely ignored. This is a flawed policy.