Fort Hood Report Faults Army Officers

[Warrior-Mentor]

COMMENT: Don't you love how this title implies that the attack was the fault of Army Officers, rather than Hasan himself?

Yes, some officers passed this guy on. Clearly, this is unacceptable. And I'm glad that this may ultimately help end the political correctness and encourage others to report jihadis in the ranks.

We'll see what actually comes of it...


January 15, 2010
Report on Fort Hood Said to Fault Army Officers
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- As many as eight Army officers could face discipline for failing to do anything when the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood rampage displayed erratic behavior early in his military career, two officials familiar with the case said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates was expected to refer findings on the officers to the Army for further inquiry and possible punishment. The report on what went wrong in the case of Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, who is accused in the shootings that killed 13 people at the Texas Army base on Nov. 5, is expected to be released Friday.

Several midlevel officers overlooked or failed to act on red flags in Hasan's lax work habits and fixation on religion [islam - God forbid we state the FACT he was motivated by islam.], the officials said Thursday. Hasan was an odd duck and a loner who was passed along from office to office and job to job despite professional failings that included missed or failed exams and physical fitness requirements, the review found.

Findings about Hasan and those who supervised him are contained in a confidential addendum to a larger report about the Pentagon's handling of potential extremism in the ranks and readiness to handle the sort of mass casualties Hasan allegedly inflicted.

An official familiar with both documents detailed their findings on condition of anonymity because the larger unclassified report has not yet been released, and the one dealing with Hasan in detail will not be publicly released.

Earlier, another official familiar with the findings said the five- to eight officers who could face discipline were supervisors who knew about Hasan's shortcomings and looked the other way or who did not fully reflect concerns about Hasan in professional evaluations.

The officers supervised Hasan when he was a medical student and during his early work as an Army psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington.

Findings about Hasan are limited to a one-page summary in the main report. The report, called "Protecting the Force," concludes that the Defense Department had outdated and ineffective means to identify threats from inside as opposed to outside the military. It also says the department's means of sharing and collating information about a potential troublemaker are inadequate, one official said.

The inquiry also questions whether the Pentagon is fully committed to FBI-run Joint Terrorism Task Forces. The report calls on the Defense Department to fully staff those teams of investigators, analysts, linguists and others so the Pentagon can quickly see information collected across government agencies about potential links between troops and terrorist or extremist groups.

The report found that although emergency response at Fort Hood was generally good, there are gaps elsewhere and sometimes a failure to link emergency response operations on military installations with those in the surrounding communities.

The findings are the result of two months of work by a panel convened by Gates to look for holes in Pentagon policies and procedures revealed by the Hasan case. The review, which was led by retired Adm. Vernon E. Clark and former Army secretary Togo D. West Jr., did not consider whether the shootings were an act of terrorism and did not delve into allegations that Hasan was in contact with a radical cleric in Yemen. Those questions are part of the separate criminal case against Hasan.

Hasan got passing grades and a promotion in part because disturbing information about his behavior and performance was not recorded by superiors or properly passed to others who might have stepped in, the report found.

As Hasan's training progressed, his strident views on Islam became more pronounced as did worries about his competence as a medical professional. Yet his superiors continued to give him positive performance evaluations that kept him moving through the ranks and led to his eventual assignment at Fort Hood.

Recent statistics show the Army rarely blocks junior officers from promotion, especially in the medical corps.

The report does not answer whether intervention by one of Hasan's superiors might have prevented the shootings[COMMENT: Could anything short of throwing him in jail (on what charges?) prevented the attacks? This implies that it is possible to know if something could have been done to prevent the attack, which is unknowable - again bad reporting at best, clearly skewed at worst.], one official said. It is possible that full knowledge by some superiors or a more proactive response to disturbing aspects of Hasan's behavior could have either helped him or gotten him fired, that official said, but there is no clear evidence that anything would have been different.

Hasan was often late or absent, sometimes appeared disheveled and performed to minimum requirements. The pattern that was obvious to many around him yet not fully reflected where it counted in the Army's bureaucratic system of evaluation and promotion, investigators found.

Hasan nonetheless earned some good reviews from patients and colleagues. His promotion to major was based on an incomplete personnel file, one official said, but also on performance markers that Hasan had met, if barely.

Hasan showed no signs of being violent or a threat. But parallels have been drawn between the missed signals in his case and those preceding the thwarted Christmas attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner. President Barack Obama and his top national security aides have acknowledged they had intelligence about the alleged bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, but failed to connect the dots.


SOURCE:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010...-Pentagon.html

RELATED STORIES:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011500428.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6098977.shtml

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

COMMENT: Don't you love how this title implies that the attack was the fault of Army Officers, rather than Hasan himself?

Yes, some officers passed this guy on. Clearly, this is unacceptable. And I'm glad that this may ultimately help end the political correctness and encourage others to report jihadis in the ranks.

We'll see what actually comes of it...

I must be off my meds, because this so infuriates me that I'm on the verge of another rant.

The officers who will be faulted for bad decisions made those decisions in what they thought was in their best interests for their careers. The real fault is the environment that helped them believe that these decisions were in their best interests. US Chief of Army Staff, General George Casey Jr. would be my choice of where to start laying blame, only because of his comment

“It would be a shame — as great a tragedy as this was — it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well,”

I sincerely hope I have not offended anyone here, but rants tend to leave collateral damage in their wake.

[Richard]

The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer.
- Edward R. Murrow

Richard

[T-Rock]

The officers who will be faulted for bad decisions made those decisions in what they thought was in their best interests for their careers. The real fault is the environment that helped them believe that these decisions were in their best interests. US Chief of Army Staff, General George Casey Jr. would be my choice of where to start laying blame, only because of his comment

Well….we certainly wouldn’t want to create that nonexistent backlash towards a certain religion would we - our diversity is at stake here…what’s 13 killed and 30 wounded?

"We object to, and do not believe, that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this, (Janet Napolitano)…" as if we citizens are too dumb to distinguish between the radical ideology of Islam vs. its peaceful practitioners…

Unfortunately for those Officers, exerting critical thought about Islam gets you labeled as a bigot, a racist, or someone who needs counseling by a Psychiatrist for some sort of ethical illness - take note of all the apology CZARs that come forth out of the darkness when one dares speak out critically against Islam - how can one seriously blame those Officers when their indoctrinated environment disallows dissent towards a fascist ideology.

Fort Hood just goes to show that political correctness can be deadly, yet our current administration is laying the groundwork for future carnage.

[Warrior-Mentor]

Originally Posted by T-Rock

Fort Hood just goes to show that political correctness can be deadly, yet our current administration is laying the groundwork for future carnage.

T-Rock - I agree with the first half of your statement. YET, I hope that the outcome of any disciplinary action serves as an example which will help end the political correctness. If nothing is done, I would be inclined to agree.

The outcome is yet to be seen...

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

I must be off my meds, because this so infuriates me that I'm on the verge of another rant.

The officers who will be faulted for bad decisions made those decisions in what they thought was in their best interests for their careers. The real fault is the environment that helped them believe that these decisions were in their best interests. US Chief of Army Staff, General George Casey Jr. would be my choice of where to start laying blame, only because of his comment
I sincerely hope I have not offended anyone here, but rants tend to leave collateral damage in their wake.

OH well. . . that's different.
Change headlines to "ENTIRE US ARMY OFFICER CORPS TO BLAME, Leavenworth Braces for resident course".

Originally Posted by Dozer523

OH well. . . that's different.
Change headlines to "ENTIRE US ARMY OFFICER CORPS TO BLAME, Leavenworth Braces for resident course".

A couple of good choices would do wonders in focusing the mind. My nomination for number one holds.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

The officers who will be faulted for bad decisions made those decisions in what they thought was in their best interests for their careers.

Do you have information from the still classified report that supports this comment? Or is this speculation on your part?

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

The real fault is the environment that helped them believe that these decisions were in their best interests. US Chief of Army Staff, General George Casey Jr. would be my choice of where to start laying blame, only because of his comment.

Where does personal accountability fit into things? Does your argument mean that environmental issues can serve to excuse instances of misconduct in other professions or in civilian life? ("For fear of X, I did Y.")

FWIW, more than twenty years ago, I was one of two or three civilians in a military science course on military law and professional ethics. At one point, the instructor, a soft spoken lieutenant colonel who had fought in Vietnam, looked at the ROTC cadets and asked softly what they would do if their CO asked them to falsify a report. Without waiting for an answer, he turned back to his lecture.

From that lesson and others, he taught his students that, ultimately, professional officers are responsible for the decisions they make.

(His expression of dislike for Oliver North was startling. During another lecture, he looked up from his notes and mentioned that he and a number of his colleagues would like to have a "moment alone with Mr. North.")

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Do you have information from the still classified report that supports this comment? Or is this speculation on your part?

Where does personal accountability fit into things? Does your argument mean that environmental issues can serve to excuse instances of misconduct in other professions or in civilian life? ("For fear of X, I did Y.")

I base my comments on more than 10 years in middle management of a Fortune 500 company. Those who care about getting ahead more than their personal integrity will do remarkably corrupt things. There is tremendous pressure to go along to get along. I personally did things I am not proud of. Eventually I was eased out for being outspoken. During one counseling session with my boss he asked me, "Don't you care about supporting your family?"

Setting an example is about more than just direct accountability. My comments concerning General Casey are related to his general incompetence. In civilian life we would call his promotion to Army Chief of Staff as being "kicked upstairs." His comments are, in my view, prima facie evidence of incompetence. The fact that his statement is a demonstration of incompetence that is related to Muslim political correctness is a happy side benefit that should be used to maximum advantage to send the message. To bad for him that his pulic record serves so well to indict him.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

I base my comments on more than 10 years in middle management of a Fortune 500 company. Those who care about getting ahead more than their personal integrity will do remarkably corrupt things. There is tremendous pressure to go along to get along. I personally did things I am not proud of. Eventually I was eased out for being outspoken. During one counseling session with my boss he asked me, "Don't you care about supporting your family?"

Setting an example is about more than just direct accountability. My comments concerning General Casey are related to his general incompetence. In civilian life we would call his promotion to Army Chief of Staff as being "kicked upstairs." His comments are, in my view, prima facie evidence of incompetence. The fact that his statement is a demonstration of incompetence that is related to Muslim political correctness is a happy side benefit that should be used to maximum advantage to send the message. To bad for him that his pulic record serves so well to indict him.

Bluntly, it sounds like you are very angry at your former employer.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Bluntly, it sounds like you are very angry at your former employer.

Nope.

I'm angry with myself for succumbing to weakness on those occasions when I went along with what I knew was wrong without speaking out.

[Stingray]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

Nope.

I'm angry with myself for succumbing to weakness on those occasions when I went along with what I knew was wrong without speaking out.

We will deal one of two pains. The pain of discipline or the pain of regret. The great thing is we get to choose.

Originally Posted by Stingray

We will deal one of two pains. The pain of discipline or the pain of regret. The great thing is we get to choose.

Now that we have segued into psychoanalysis, I'll expand. A good way to prepare for tough choices is to imagine the worse that could happen. If you can live with that outcome, then you can choose with more logic than emotion. I chose to speak out. They chose to ease me out. So be it. It was my choice.

When relating my analysis to a friend, he suggest that my story reminded him of the joke about the ship's captain who stayed at the wheel after being torpedoed while shouting, "They didn't sink me, I'm taking it down."

[Warrior-Mentor]

Hood massacre report gutless and shameful
By RALPH PETERS
January 16, 2010

There are two basic problems with the grotesque non-report on the Islamist- terror massacre at Fort Hood (released by the Defense Department yesterday):

* It's not about what happened at Fort Hood.

* It avoids entirely the issue of why it happened.

Rarely in the course of human events has a report issued by any government agency been so cowardly and delusional. It's so inept, it doesn't even rise to cover-up level.

"Protecting the Force: Lessons From Fort Hood" never mentions Islamist terror. Its 86 mind-numbing pages treat "the alleged perpetrator," Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, as just another workplace shooter (guess they're still looking for the pickup truck with the gun rack).

The report is so politically correct that its authors don't even realize the extent of their political correctness -- they're body-and-soul creatures of the PC culture that murdered 12 soldiers and one Army civilian.

Reading the report, you get the feeling that, jeepers, things actually went pretty darned well down at Fort Hood. Commanders, first responders and everybody but the latest "American Idol" contestants come in for high praise.

The teensy bit of specific criticism is reserved for the "military medical officer supervisors" in Maj. Hasan's chain of command at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. As if the problem started and ended there.

Unquestionably, the officers who let Hasan slide, despite his well-known wackiness and hatred of America, bear plenty of blame. But this disgraceful pretense of a report never asks why they didn't stop Hasan's career in its tracks.

The answer is straightforward: Hasan's superiors feared -- correctly -- that any attempt to call attention to his radicalism or to prevent his promotion would backfire on them, destroying their careers, not his.

Hasan was a protected-species minority. Under the PC tyranny of today's armed services, no non-minority officer was going to take him on.

This is a military that imposes rules of engagement that protect our enemies and kill our own troops and that court-martials heroic SEALs to appease a terrorist. Ain't many colonels willing to hammer the Army's sole Palestinian-American psychiatrist.

Of course, there's no mention of political correctness by the panel. Instead, the report settles for blinding flashes of the obvious, such as "We believe a gap exists in providing information to the right people." Gee, really? Well, that explains everything. Money well spent!

Or "Department of Defense force protection policies are not optimized for countering internal threats." Of course not: You can't stop an internal threat you refuse to recognize.

The panel's recommendations? Wow. "Develop a risk-assessment tool for commanders." Now that's going to stop Islamist terrorists in their tracks.

The Fort Hood massacre didn't reflect an intelligence failure. The intelligence was there, in gigabytes. This was a leadership failure and an ethical failure, at every level. Nobody wanted to know what Hasan was up to. But you won't learn that from this play-pretend report.

The sole interesting finding flashes by quickly: Behind some timid wording on pages 13 and 14, a daring soul managed to insert the observation that we aren't currently able to keep violence-oriented religious extremists from becoming chaplains. (Of course, they're probably referring to those darned Baptists . . .)

To be fair, there's a separate, classified report on Maj. Hasan himself. But it's too sensitive for the American people to see. Does it even hint he was a self-appointed Islamist terrorist committing jihad? I'll bet it focuses on his "personal problems."

In the end, the report contents itself with pretending that the accountability problem was isolated within the military medical community at Walter Reed. It wasn't, and it isn't. Murderous political correctness is pervasive in our military. The medical staff at Walter Reed is just where the results began to manifest themselves in Hasan's case.

Once again, the higher-ups blame the worker bees who were victims of the policy the higher-ups inflicted on them. This report's spinelessness is itself an indictment of our military's failed moral and ethical leadership.

We agonize over civilian casualties in a war zone but rush to whitewash the slaughter of our own troops on our own soil. Conduct unbecoming.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "The War After Armageddon."

SOURCE:http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...oMs8ux4lQdtyGM

[The Reaper]

Exactly.

And the report (as well as GEN Casey's comments on the matter) is irrefutable evidence of the bias in the system towards PC.

Anyone daring to speak the truth about Hasan before or after the event, would have been called in, sat down, grilled, made to change their comments, probably sued by CAIR or the likes, been investigated themselves, branded as Neanderthals and racists of the worst kind, forced to publicly apologize to Hasan, and their own career likely ended as the result.

Today, I am ashamed of my Army.

TR