On Thursday, November 5, thirteen people were killed at the hands of one of their own. In Fort Hood, Texas, an army psychologist, Major Nadil Malik Hasan, opened fire in his own army base upon hearing the news about his deployment to Afghanistan. The media has taken advantage of this tragic affair and labeled this incident as an act against America, bloodshed in the name of Allah—Muslim terrorist style. Is this really what Major Hasan had in mind—murdering his friends and neighbors in order to spread the terror he and thousands of his kindred American soldiers have dedicated their lives to stopping? Does the media honestly find the American public that ignorant? Major Hasan’s faith did not play a predominate role in his decision to open fire; it was his fear for his future.
There is too much American animosity toward Muslims. Yes, we are in a war with assumed Muslims, but must we scream terrorist whenever a Muslim makes it into the scene? I’m in no way trying to excuse Major Hasan’s actions; his horrific massacre labels him a terrorist. My handy MAC dictionary defines terrorist as one “who uses violence and intimidation in order to pursue political aims”. But notice that the term “Muslim” is nowhere mentioned in the definition.
Allow me to also clarify what a Muslim is. Muslims follow the faith of Islam, one of the most recent of the three main religions of the world (the other two being Christianity and Judaism). Muslims believe in the same Christian and Jewish deity, Allah, or in English God. In Islam, God appeared to Mohammed and told him to refine the faith in the new book the Koran. This faith has five basic guidelines, or pillars. The first requires a Muslim to profess their faith through this prayer, the Shahadah: There is none worthy of worship except God and Muhammad is the messenger of God; the second requires Muslims to pray five times a day; the third advocates for Muslims to give voluntarily and charitably; the fourth specifies how the Islamic holiday of Ramadan should be celebrated; the fifth obligates Muslims to travel to the holy city of Mecca to worship. There is nothing about suicide bombings, or seventy virgins, or “death to America”—none of that. That interpretation of Islam was brought about in the mid-eighty’s by media popular Osama Bin Laden and his crew, Al Qaeda. They terrorized their own people in order to spread this interpretation, from kidnapping children, Uganda child soldier status, to brainwash these young children to learn hate. Using critical thinking skills, why would a faith that promotes hate inspire millions of humans worldwide? Answer: it doesn’t.
Back to the issue, isn’t it funny how Americans jump to the conclusion that is was religion that pushed this man over the edge? When America isn’t fighting the terrorists, we’re busy pushing religion out of public institutions. Religion is a foundation of hope created for generations of people to connect and share their hope and faith of a better place, yet today, we’ve painted this idea into a monster only conducive to trouble. The first amendment may give Americans the freedom to profess whatever faith they decide, but it sure does not protect against the prejudices of supporting one faith over the other, as seen in the Muslim hysteria. Maybe it’s that difficult to point out the flaws in our own military infrastructure.
War is a terrifying reality. From the oceans of blood spilled, to the deafening chorus of gunshots and explosions, to the devastated faces of survivors. We, as Americans, have been incredibly fortunate to be spared of such horrifying experiences. Imagine our nation under constant bombardment, death reeking in every corridor, despair making up for the nationalism we currently uphold—we can’t. Our military and security systems are superior for that purpose, to spare us from such nightmares. But what expenses must we sacrifice to hold such comfort? We send our troops away, which isn’t as simple as shipping these men and women overseas. We must prepare these heroes not only physically but also mentally. Part of military training is to break the soldier’s spirit to where they must learn to avoid ethical thought so obedience is only concept resounding in their minds. However barbaric this practice is, it gets the job done; Soldiers are not only expected to give their life for the sake of American protection, but their souls. Everything that a soldier has grown up understanding in ethics will constantly be challenged, and their trainers, I don’t feel, prepare them enough for this time.
Looking through history, the art of war has changed. The evolution of war begins with knights running around with flaming crossbows and swords, to guns, to pistols to nuclear bombs. Yet one thing has always remained the same—the enemy was always distinguished in uniform. The American Civil War was divided from the Blue Union to the Red Confederates, WWII Nations each had their own distinguishable helmet and uniform, but in this current War on Terror, there is nothing to differentiate the terrorist from the everyday citizen. You can only begin to realize these complications. Who do the Americans attack? No one is going to march and confront them as in Narnia or Lord of the Rings; this is a completely new concept of war, which we obviously have not mastered. We’ve all seen the news, “Muslim woman suicide bomber kills 13”. Imagine how the soldiers who okayed this woman into continuing on the road must feel, this war has no boundaries. Who is the enemy and who is the victim? No one knows. The crucial reason why this war has lasted so long is because Al Qaeda has been able to hold an element of surprise over Western soldiers. Imagine the chaos.
With this said, how do we prepare our military to face this reality? First we must teach these men and women to adapt to the new culture and surroundings. Soldiers must be prepared to leave the city streets with the constant presence of modern civilization to inhabit dusty mountains decorated with even dustier buildings. We must also teach, thoroughly, the social customs of the nation. We can’t run into a country and expect to get away with saying “What good with it?” to every civilian. Making sure our soldiers are not only aware of the differences but also able interact with that society in proper code, we can already ensure a more comfortable situation for our soldiers. Helping soldiers cope with the harsh reality of not knowing who you’re killing is a harder to task to carry out, a task America needs to spend more time working on.
As I mentioned earlier, Major Hasan brought the army base into chaos once he heard the news of his deployment. This man was to be deployed to a land he’s never stepped foot in, a land culturally different from the one he is accustomed to, a land where the terrorist may sleep next door. How does one face such a reality? Obviously Major Hasan couldn’t. Nadil Hasan took the same route Seung-hui Cho took when he went on a shooting rampage at Virginia Tech; the same route Timothy McVeigh chose when he bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Building. Unlike these massacres, we did not declare it was Cho’s Korean Christian upbringing that pushed him over the edge, nor was it McVeigh’s Irish Catholic upbringing that motivated him to take 168 lives. Come on now America! Think! Was it really the prospect of celestial virgins that pushed Major Nadil Malik Hasan to kill his comrades? Allah Akbar; God is great—not bloodthirsty.