The massacre at Fort Hood will likely lead to backlash against Americans of Islamic faith and Arab descent, and test the limits of this country’s capacity for religious and ethnic tolerance. A lot is riding on how well we exercise restraint.

U.S. Army Chief of Staff General George Casey summed it best when he commented in a recent television interview, “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

A criminal investigation, still in its early stages, has preliminarily concluded Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s rampage, which killed 13 and wounded 30, was the act of a disturbed loner.

In that sense, Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, was probably no different than many isolated, depressed, angry men who have indiscriminately murdered before taking their lives or been killed by law enforcement. Such grisly dramas have become too common in America’s homes, schools, university campuses and workplaces.

Some trace this lethal phenomenon to Charles Whitman, a University of Texas student and ex-Marine, who, on Aug. 1, 1966, barricaded himself in the university’s clock tower and spent 93 minutes raining bullets on passers-by with a sniper rifle until shot by police. He killed 15 and wounded 31.
So many similar incidents have occurred since then that only the most bloody, like the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, which claimed 12 students and one teacher, stick in our memories. We’ve even coined a darkly humorous phrase for it – “going postal” – a reference to a series of murder-suicides by post office workers.

What sets the rampage at Fort Hood apart is this killer, an Army officer, was a devout Muslim of Palestinian parents, who had advocated conscientious objector status for American Muslims in the current wars, likened suicide bombers to soldiers sacrificing for a “more noble cause,” equated the war on terror with a war against Islam, and tried to stop his own looming deployment to Afghanistan.

Since 9/11 and the Iraq and Afghan wars, Americans have tended to see all Muslims, particularly Arab Muslims, as dangerous fanatics. For many, Fort Hood conjures chilling images of Middle Eastern terrorists infiltrating U.S. military installations to commit mayhem in the heartland. Such thinking can generate paranoia that is bad for the country.

That Hasan is reported to have had contact with Anwar Al Awlaki, an American-born radical Muslim cleric now living in Yemen who’s incited American Muslims to engage in jihad, won’t help the case for restraint. Nor does Al Awlaki calling Nidal a hero and declaring that “the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.”

While Nidal may have been familiar with radical doctrines propagated by Al Awlaki, we can’t automatically conclude he was solely motivated by them, let alone that he was an El Qaeda plant. He could have used jihadist rhetoric to rationalize his own desperate, violent impulses.

The problem with political paranoia, even when based on a kernel of truth, is it spreads like contagion, distorts public outlook and policy, results in vindictive reactions, and invariably causes more harm than it prevents.

A notable example came after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Many believed, despite absence of evidence, that Japanese-Americans in Hawaii were spies for the invasion force. Prominent military, political and business leaders, including Earl Warren, then California attorney general and later chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, argued in frankly racist terms for internment of ethnic Japanese living in the United States.

The Army removed about 120,000 Japanese-Americans (approximately 80,000 of whom were U.S. citizens) from their homes and businesses on the West Coast in 1942 and confined them in squalid camps until early 1945. This was done without due process or probable cause to believe they were disloyal. In fact, none were ever prosecuted for espionage.

In recent years, the U.S. military has tried to foster tolerance towards Muslims in uniform, who may number as many as 10,000. To date, this effort has met with mixed success – but at least the effort is being made.

Attracting recruits of Islamic faith is important for many reasons. First, along with public schools, the armed forces are an effective catalyst for assimilation of immigrants and their children. Second, the inclusion of Muslims in units deployed in Afghanistan could help win hearts and minds in counter-insurgency operations. Third, as Gen. Casey has suggested, the notion of equality of opportunity and tolerance for all faiths is a vital part of the American ethos.

If this is set back by the posturing and finger-pointing of Congressional committees, political opportunists, pundits and bigots, it could discourage Muslims from joining or remaining in the military and poison the public’s attitude towards Muslims living in the U.S.
No doubt blame will be assigned in the wake of various inquiries. Indeed, if intelligence that Hasan was psychologically unstable or espousing subversion was inexcusably ignored, then those responsible should be held to account.

However, even if Hasan was motivated by extreme Islamic ideology, this does not mean Muslims, as a group, should be treated as dangerous aliens who must be quarantined.

Watchfulness is one thing. Discrimination, born of irrational fear, is quite another.

Elliott L. Epstein, a local attorney, is founder and board president of
Museum L-A and an adjunct history instructor at Central Maine Community
College. He can be reached at [email protected].