« Josh Marshall discusses the use of anonymous sources on TPM | artappraiser's Blog | Saudi Arabia has been conducting an all-out war with Shiite rebels in Yemen and Iran doesn't like it »
Proper procedure, and ultimately lives, sacrificed partly due to political correctness?
Read it in full at the link, the following excerpts are just to give an idea:
NPR: Walter Reed Officials Asked: Was Hasan Psychotic?
by Daniel Zwerdling
November 11, 2009
Starting in the spring of 2008, key officials from Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences held a series of meetings and conversations, in part about Maj. Nidal Hasan, the man accused of killing 13 people and wounding dozens of others last week during a shooting spree at Fort Hood. One of the questions they pondered: Was Hasan psychotic?
"Put it this way," says one official familiar with the conversations that took place. "Everybody felt that if you were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, you would not want Nidal Hasan in your foxhole."
In documents reviewed by NPR and conversations with medical officials at Walter Reed and USUHS, new details have emerged regarding serious concerns that officials raised about Hasan during his time at both institutions....
Deeply Troubling, Schizoid Behavior....
....Hasan had been a trouble spot on officials' radar since he started training at Walter Reed, six years earlier....
Bureaucratic And Other Obstacles
So why didn't officials act on their concerns and seek to remove Hasan from his duties, or at least order him to receive a mental health evaluation? Interviews with these officials suggest that a chain of unrelated events and factors deterred them.
For one thing, Walter Reed and most medical institutions have a cumbersome and lengthy process for expelling doctors, involving hearings and potential legal battles. As a result, sources say, key decision-makers decided it would be too difficult, if not unfeasible, to put Hasan on probation and possibly expel him from the program.
Second, some of Hasan's supervisors and instructors had told colleagues that they repeatedly bent over backward to support and encourage him, because they didn't have clear evidence that he was unstable, and they worried they might be "discriminating" against Hasan because of his seemingly extremist Islamic beliefs.
Third, the officials involved in deliberations this year reportedly were not aware, as some top Walter Reed officials were, that intelligence analysts had been tracking Hasan's e-mails with at least one suspected Islamic extremist since December 2008.
And finally....
Advertisement
Of the many dumb mistakes that must have been made, there probably was some element of what will be called political correctness. Maybe a lot of it.
It will be called political correctness over and over and that term will be emphasized to minimize attention to other mistakes but mostly because it is code to say that liberals caused the mistakes.
November 12, 2009 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds to me more like it was beaurucrats who didn't want to deal with a HR nightmare.
November 12, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have heard blame laid [partly] on political correctness a couple times already and the the title here asks if it is partly to blame.
Hey Arta, if I was your editor I would change the word order in your title. I know what you mean but Those lives were completely sacrificed.
November 12, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
A tardy thanks for the helpful input, I did struggle with that and did a quick change right away after I saw your comment.
November 13, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Political correctness? You pulled that aspect of the article up and put it in your title? Are you serious? You ever check how often doctors get nailed and removed, demoted, punished, for ANYTHING? Come on, Arta.
As the article says, "Walter Reed and most medical institutions have a cumbersome and lengthy process for expelling doctors, involving hearings and potential legal battles. As a result, sources say, key decision-makers decided it would be too difficult, if not unfeasible, to put Hasan on probation and possibly expel him from the program." It also says, "Several officials confirm that supervisors had repeatedly given him poor evaluations and warned him that he was doing substandard work."
It's got less to do with political correctness I think, than a tooled up medical profession protecting its own. I mean, of two hypotheses, we're seriously worried that 1) out of society's institutions, the military is too heavily infected with political correctness?? Hmmmm.... let's weigh that against 2) the idea that the medical profession armor-plates its members against charges and removal.
I think I'm going with the latter.
November 12, 2009 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you nailed it there, Quinn. Political correctness, much like Mae West's "goodness", had nothing to do with it.
To continue to mention it propagates an error. Most likely a deliberate one, as its use fairly reeks of the sort of thing we'd call anti-Semitism had the Major been named, say, Whatever-stein or Something-berg.
Notice also how the gun crazies are suspiciously quiet on this one. Name me a place where firearms are more tightly controlled than a military base. Then find me three places where fewer gun crimes occur per capita. Same graf, please.
(Not directly to you, of course, it's rhetorical.)
November 12, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
It never ceases to amaze how out of the norm a doctor must go before her/his profession will do anything about it.
And the profession only acts once the publicity begins to embarrasss the profession. Until then, and even then, public safety isn't a concern.
November 12, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
quinn,
I make no excuses for headlining it that way, as I think it's something important that people should be questioning themselves about. I happen to strongly agree with the Irshad Manji types that it's way past time progessives stop "infantilizing Islam," as I heard her say a day or two ago, and that in that vein it's important that we shouldn't reduce this story to Islam, but we shouldn't whitewash it, either.
Actually, many of the intial reactions on this site really disturbed me, how people self-censor about violent Islamic ideology and its effects on the unbalanced or the just plain violently angry at America looking to act out, and try to get everyone else to self-censor or feel guilt about talking about it. Just because others manipulated that situation to start wars, and just because there are prejudiced idiots who will use such talk the wrong way, doesn't mean grownups shouldn't talk about it. Strange that there's no taboo against talking about Christian fanaticism and Jewish fanaticism inspiring nuts to violent action and thereby causing a lot of trouble in the world.
Actually, as the U.S. military major actions right now are in Islamic countries, its way past time that we demand more knowledge from them about Islam than simplistic hatred or simplistic preferential treatment. I think the issue raised is far more important than the individual incident, and far more important issue than worrying about whether doctors get preferential treatment in the military. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
November 13, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just think you're projecting a bit on this, Arta, and since I think you're smart and reasonable, I'm gonna sass back. ;-)
Like so. When I was 19 and overseas, I got caught up in some highly-emotional events whipped up by a local mullah in Malaysia, heightened by events in Iran at the time. A local mob, torches in hand, stacks of wood shoved up my house, ready to kill us all. For DANCING.
Now, obviously we got away. And I spent much of the following decade studying theology and politics, as well as economics and such. But since then, I've never been known to dance around or play PC when it comes to Islam. I'm entirely happy to say I think that that Islam has some serious internal problems these days, and has some dangerous asshole elements that I'd be entirely happy to see taken out into a field and taken out with a shovel.
But somehow you think my view is driven by progressive PC attitudes, and that I "infantilize" Islam? Sorry. I think that's you projecting.
Same way as I think you're misreading the weight that the medical profession's cover-your-ass tendency plays in these kinds of hassles. (I wasn't talking about their preferential status within the military, BTW, I was talking about how they protect their own.)
And I'm a lot less concerned about some self-censoring amongst progressives these days than with what I see as the bigger delusion going on in the US concerning these wars. Namely that since the Dems have come in, any fire about ending these adventures has pretty much been dampened down. I get to read wave after wave of descriptions of the tough balancing act Obama has to make, leavened perhaps by an occasional Rutabaga special, when this nonsense would be absolutely and utterly rejected if it was frigging GW Bush talking it over with Gates and McChrystal.
And in all of it, I get the patented paternalism of the American progressive, now wheeled around in defence of... ummm.... whatever the fuck Obama eventually decides to do on Afghanistan.
So in your view, now's the time to demand of the US Military a more sophisticated knowledge of Islam? Wrong. I'm sorry, but after 8 years of massive failure, mass death - including far too many innocent towns, weddings and gatherings, on top of the whole torture thing, on top of the great big goddamn lie to start with thing - it's time to demand of the US Military (and the US as a whole) that it GO THE FUCK HOME.
This isn't about creating a learning experience for you, the military or the US, Arta. It's really not about you and your attitudes and learning curves and nuance and sophisticated tactics and understandings or any of that shit. Because the performance to date has been about the most god-awful, extended, death-drenched, clusterfuck imaginable.
The fact that the Military can't even identify a Muslim fanatic/mental case within their own midst is just a flaming arrow exclamation mark shot into the corpse.
November 13, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is another report with similar details. It suggests that political correctness may have been in the background, not as the principal reason for overlooking his unusual behavior, but in the sense that those observing Hasan wanted to be sure they weren't judging Hasan unfairly. There is also an element of defensiveness in the description of how Hasan was permitted to continue serving in a medical capacity:
"The group saw no evidence that Hasan, 39, was violent or a threat. It was more that he repeatedly referred to his strong religious views in discussions with classmates, his superiors and even in his research work, the official said. His behavior, while at times perceived as intense and combative, was not unlike the zeal of others with strong religious views, and some doctors and staff were concerned that their unfamiliarity with the Muslim faith would lead them to unfairly single out Hasan's behavior, the official said."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ihGepAkECGoDagETVBMpPb3w7Y3gD9BTKQ681
November 12, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds more like laziness to me. If you are unfamiliar with something, then you get familiar with it if you need the information. There are many Muslims in this country, and many Muslim professionals who could have been consulted discreetly. Obviously, Hasan's behavior merited scrutiny or there wouldn't have been concern at all. But was their concern worth the effort it would take to follow up on their concerns? They chose to let it lie.
To blame "their unfamiliarity" is as lame a cop-out as it is to tell a police officer "I was unaware that doing that was illegal." Sounds to me like making excuses for the reporters' questions.
November 12, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
heh, sorry for the unintentional pun.
November 12, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The article is troubling. The journalism itself is substandard because it mixes in possible reasons which color the substance. The substance is that Major Hasan received evaulations which contained strong language of diagnosis. The diagnosis reflected possible personality disorder of a severe nature. Evidently, his negative performance was well documented, and the burden of following through on the paperwork was handed to Ft. Hood.
The question of why is given to anonymous speculation... and it amounts to nothing more than mind reading.
Leave it to political axe-grinders to focus on questions of political correctness instead of problems within the military and psychriatic communities to police and discipline their own. Chains of command can be notoriously lazy when it comes to punitive measures. A member that should be relieved of command or discharged is often left in place or shuffled around in such a manner that they do the least amount of harm. Once the problem is so severe that something HAS to be done, the paperwork is given as proof that the chain of command has been doing their job. The biggest immediate punitive measures are taken for those who screw up "in public," i.e., the civilian world. If you ever listen to testimonials from alcohol and drug related discharges, for instance, you will see a pattern of misconduct that was documented and discplined, but not via the UCMJ. The UCMJ only came into play when they were caught with the third DUI, or something publically embarrassing. The average soldier is given a basket of second chances because their failures reflect on leadership vice individual performance.
So, if I were to theorize, I would blame the inability of the doctor in charge to pull the trigger and remove Hasan from his duties. I think they rationalized his change of station to Ft. Hood as a means of passing the buck. I doubt that Hasan's religion played as a factor, except as a legal aspect. If Hasan were to acquire an attorney, doubtless the case would be made that his patients and peers were persecuting him for his faith. Given the equal opportunity regulations of the armed forces, this would pose a problem. This isn't political correctness, it is a matter of law based on very real acts of discrimination in the armed forces.
November 12, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got it.
November 12, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
In so many words, Hasan stated that, unlike Americans, Muslims would choose death over life resultant from their total dedication to the teachings of Islam. During WWII the Japanese chose death over dishonor based upon the ingrained indoctrination to the Bushido philosophy. Both attitudes, taken to the extreme, can be detrimental to the success of a military that bases its' traditions on loyalty to a state in lieu of fanaticism. Without acknowledging the potential conflicts, it would seem that such atrocities as occurred at Fort Hood are going to occur from time to time. Hasan was "advertising" that he was of doubtful loyalties...Yet, he was allowed to perform his duty as a good mujaheddin.
November 12, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the article. Anonymous sourcing, no one on record.
Sounds to me quite a bit like those busybodies who, after the fact, insist the perp "looked crazy" or whatever in a grocery line six months ago.
IOW, total crap.
If this turns out to be true, my observation would tend to be that since the armed forces tolerate christianist proselytizing, they can't very well prohibit other types.
Not exactly political correctness, at all. More like religious tolerance.
No wonder they are looking for signs of er, "emotional" conflict from everyone, not just Muslims.
Nice of you and NPR to help push the hate agenda, ArtA. I guess it's too tempting to ignore one's brain and go with their gut whenever the MSM says, jump.
November 12, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he was such a quiet guy. Seemed so normal. Except for all that digging in the backyard late at night...
November 12, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...and that red light shining out of his eyes, I swear, I remember it well. I was in the HennyPenny, late last February when a guy that looks just like this one walked in, I'll never ferget it. He was covered in chicken blood, well, that's what he told me it was..." quoted an anonymous military official.
(Who turns out to be a hired janitor that left the military workforce 3 years ago.)
We report, you believe.
November 12, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds like Hasan's colleagues and superiors were unable to (or didn't bother to) separately answer the separate questions they should have asked:
1. Can this person function as a psychiatrist? Justify your answer.
2. Can this person function as a soldier? Justify your answer.
The trouble here may have been that nobody wanted to make a decision about Hasan on either of these issues and then stand behind it. Nobody likes to be sued, but if you've covered your bases you won't be.
An additional problem: using continued employment as punishment for poor performance. The whole idea that the military should keep people on once they don't want to be there is really questionable. I know they've got to "pay" for their education and all, but keeping someone on who has clearly stated that Muslims should be granted C/O status? I'd get that person their C/O status asap, under the most pleasant circumstances possible, with a signed agreement that everyone is happy with the outcome.
Maybe you can force people to stay on at lower-level positions, but in a professional or caregiving capacity, it's just not worth it. I know they'd pulled the guy off direct patient contact as much as possible, but still he was dragging down his workforce.
November 12, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
...they simply passed the buck.
November 12, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think factors are more cultural than political. You've a bunch of conflicting cultures involved not evening including Islamic culture - academic, medical, military, and all the layers of bureaucracy.
You can suggest all kinds of checks to make something like this less likely but the bureaucracy is so bound up in red tape already that it often barely functions at all (see Katrina).
We have to have some acceptance that we do not live in a world without risk. We can't even keep sex abusers out of the church and the kindergarden. Soldiers volunteer to serve an enormous complex organization and they accept a level of risk. Making their organization more complicated and risk averse may not save lives.
November 12, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Katrina was not the result of red tape. It was the result of an anti-gov't "philosophy" of:
Gov't SHOULDN'T do anything for We the people.
November 12, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't yet know all the evidence. There is certainly abundant evidence to date of Hasan's extreme views and his approval of suicide bombings and other violent acts, but nothing that I've yet seen implying that he himself was violent.
The problem with retrospective analysis is that when someone does something horrible, there were almost always warning signs. That's fine, except that the same warning signs are exhibited by thousands more people who never do anything horrible. It seems reasonable to suggest that perhaps some earlier personal interactions with Hasan by superiors might have been undertaken, but it's too early to blame the military for not identifying Hasan as a potential murderer.
November 12, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, Fred, but if you think about it, it's the military's job to identify murderers. That's its primary business these days.
November 12, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's the military's job to identify murderers."
And Gasket, for the win.
Brilliant.
November 12, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cute. But unfair to many who serve, who are valued for their service, and might be offended at being judged murderous by someone who disapproves of an ongoing war. In any case, they can speak for themselves, and if given the opportunity would do so with eloquence.
In my experience with the military, both in person and as an observer, what it values is a willingness to follow orders. What it very much wants to avoid are those inclined to engage in unrestrained acts of violence on their own. By legal definition, those are the murderers. The acts of those who follow orders in combat may be a matter of debate, but if murder is intended to mean the intentional killing of innocents, most soldiers would surely and legitimately be offended to be judged murderers by that definition. The few exceptions are not what the military seeks.
November 12, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
For you Fred, it's "too early to blame the military for not identifying Hasan as a potential murderer." Funny, that. 'Cause it didn't take you more than 15 minutes to be blaming Islamic leaders and Muslims for being part of the same world as Hasan, claiming that Muslims needed special watching and attention, needed to make special statements and so on.
Plus, always good to see you get your pompous on, informing people that they're now likely to be denounced (eloquently) by vets offended at being called murderers. Which is interesting, because the vets I know tended to ask lots of interesting questions about how some killings in this life are called "murder"... while others get called "service" and "duty"... and how a lot of times, during war, the distinction wasn't as clear as in the textbooks... and how the official distinction seemed to turn less on the nature of the dead and the method of killing and more on whether or not the killing was officially blessed and sanctioned by the elected authorities ("lying politicians.")
November 13, 2009 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't "do" cute, Fred. I "do" accurate. You should try it sometime.
I'm not talking about the "many who serve," although I could, but I'd rather call out your dishonest attempt to change the focus from Hasan's superiors at Walter Reed to the idealized, nameless patriot-soldier who has no authority in the military chain of command.
I'm talking about Hasan's superiors, just as the OP references: people who are trained professionals. People whose training I've paid for, don't forget.
I'm talking about the people who dropped the fucking ball, Fred, and allowed Hasan to reach a breaking point and turn his own training to kill people on his fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood. That's who I'm talking about in this particular thread. We're actually not talking about blaming grunts who had no authority over Hasan, so try to stay on topic.
And, of course, I'm talking bluntly about what the military does. No need to sugarcoat it or blur the definitions just because it makes you uncomfortable.
November 13, 2009 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
To quinn and gasket -
Gasket - Maybe they dropped the ball, as you say. My point was that we don't yet know enough to judge, but I think we will, so if you're right, we'll find out.
Quinn - Agreed that among the military, bad things can happen, sometimes done by bad people, but it's wrong to charge the military with trying to recruit murderers, and it's wrong to imply that those who serve are valued for their service because they are murderous.
I served in peacetime, so I have no personal combat experience, but I did get to know hundreds of my fellow soldiers. Most of them were ordinary people, with a few bad apples as you'd expect. They weren't murderous, and the brass disapproved of anyone who seemed uncontrollable.
In my years in the VA, I also met hundreds of veterans, and they weren't murderous either. Some of them would have taken offense at the implication that they were receiving medical care now because they engaged in the killing of innocents earlier. And despite your derisive remark, some would have defended their service with eloquence.
You're welcome to your views about the rightness or wrongness about what is happening now. That shouldn't be conflated with the character of the men and women who are actually on the ground doing the work. The bad among them should be weeded out. The good, who are in the majority, should be accorded the respect they deserve.
November 13, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
In so many words, Hasan stated that, unlike Americans, Muslims would choose death over life resultant from their total dedication to the teachings of Islam. During WWII the Japanese chose death over dishonor based upon the ingrained indoctrination to the Bushido philosophy. Both attitudes, taken to the extreme, can be detrimental to the success of a military that bases its' traditions on loyalty to a state in lieu of fanaticism. Without acknowledging the potential conflicts, it would seem that such atrocities as occurred at Fort Hood are going to occur from time to time. Hasan was "advertising" that he was of doubtful loyalties...Yet, he was allowed to perform his duty as a good mujaheddin.
November 13, 2009 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink