Twelve Shot Dead At Us Army Base, Fort Hood, TX

3: Don't pull the recruiting shenanigans of "you can just train to be a doctor/computer guy/whatever and not even go into the line of fire!" A volunteer army should be made up of people who sincerely wish to serve, not (previously) poorly educated fools who got tricked into doing something by a very convincing and seemingly friendly recruiter.

Before any pro-military types throw a fit, I'll just say my family has a history of military service and they all uniformly thought the recruiters were lying scum.

He fell through the cracks. We identify how and why and try to rectify this in the future.

But they weren't forcing him to fight. Even if he wasn't a psychologist, the army generally has enough jobs off the front line where if you absolutely don't want to fight, you won't. (This isn't true during a time of major combat operations, but it's true in a situation like we have today) No one wants an unwilling or unstable soldier fighting along side them.

It's generally true though for many MOS's/AFSC's/etc, and especially, especially for doctors. Now, everyone has to recognize that it's not a promise, just a 'this is what generally happens', and I'm pretty sure that it's on a form you have to sign and initial way, way too many times.

This post has been edited by TheWinkel on Nov 10 2009, 03:10 AM

It just sounds like the shooter has absolutely zero intention of serving, even for a non-frontline post. The only thing holding him down is the legal obligations.

Obviously I understand the Army has the right to make someone do what they promised to do. I don't believe the army did anything "wrong" as such. It's just that there is a dilemma in that you don't really know which military school graduate would become "unwilling" as soon as they got the schooling they wanted, and decided not to pay their fair price for the education.

It would have been easy to kick someone out of the army if you have a reason to believe he or she would be a liability in battle. But what if doing this means starting a precedence that permit anyone to leave the army regardless of what they legally agreed to do?

Well, it was made very clear to him when he signed up that he would, in fact, be in the Army.

His other option was to refuse a direct order and probably serve prison time.

VCV, the only middle ground I could possibly see is the "don't deploy Muslims to a Muslim country" scenario like I mentioned before, akin to the no Japanese-Americans deployed to the pacific theater during WW2.

The problem isn't either of these choices. The problem is that the shooter choose option 3, that of going on a killing spree.

The army is entirely entitled to do what it did. Everything was legit and transparent. But that's the problem; if everything worked as it should, how could we fix something that isn't technically broken?

"Schooling in exchange for combat duty". Fair, legal, and supposedly benefits both the army and the recruits. But now we see a problem, that unless there is somehow a VERY good screening process that ensures all recruits in the education program would be willing soldiers as graduates, friction can happen.

Unfortunately, sometimes the threat of jail just isn't enough.

It would physically and noticeably cut down on deployment capacity to do this, since the major front lines right now ARE in Muslim nations. At least during WWII America was fighting two fronts with entirely different enemies, in the current case this is Muslim nations or nothing.
Everyone want only the most suitable soldiers to be sent to war; but to win wars you need sufficient recruits too. The issue is how to trim out difficult cases without either harming available troop numbers, or to open the floodgates of people ripping off the army in getting free schooling for nothing.

This post has been edited by Vallen Chaos Valiant on Nov 10 2009, 03:52 AM

Being an Officer, the individual is swearing an oath of office, which like any other military service, has a contractual obligation attached to it. If he (MAJ Hasan) didn't want to serve, even if he had a contractual obligation, a simple solution, rather than attempting to become a martyr, taking out his frustration on his fellow soldiers, or whatever, was to break his contract, go AWOL, report himself, be subject to dismissal, due the time @ the disciplinary barracks, or consolidated brig, and get on with his life. Or alternatively, he could have lied and claimed that he was homosexual, and thus gotten out on the Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy.

Ah, but since it happened, the system clearly didn't work. Therefore it is broken or inadequate thus needs to be fixed, modified, or replaced with a system that does work.

Ah, but some Japanese Americans did serve in the PTO, mainly with the vital MIS. The solution isn't segregating them, but doing a better screening of who is recruited, and who is retained.

But there also is the problem of people who change their mind mind stream, they may be perfectly fine when they sign up, but 2-5-10 years down the road they change their mind.

Edit: Don't forget stop-loss I know several people who served over a year extra, I personally had to serve an extra year.

Also I don't think anything needs to be changed with the screening process what needs to be changed it people need to take complaints that are filed against a person seriously. In one of the articles it says that he had several complaints filed on him but they were not followed up because people were worried that it wouldn't be PC.

This post has been edited by Gustav on Nov 10 2009, 11:25 AM

Okay so you're ignorant on the facets of mental illness then. People can develop them later in life, and we're not all born having it. Enlisting with a known prior mental illness is one thing because it's something you have to disclose, but developing one during basic isn't out of the realm of question or reason. Stress itself is generally considered a trigger for it in some people, and if you are really going to sit there and tell me basic is neither stressful on the mind and body then I suppose I'm going to have to write you off as dishonest. I know far too many enlisted personnel to buy that line.

But in the military to say that it's not a stressful and taxing job is a blatant lie. It takes a very strong calibur of person to handle it. Mental illness in our armed forces is a serious concern and one that arguable needs to be better addressed. However I expect you to see that as coddling people instead of allowing for a stronger healthier armed forces. Military life is a big jump from civilian life and I know I'd probably have a hell of a time coping. As for why they don't quit, maybe it has something to do with the fact you'd just call them pussies or that they really wanted to make it work; that's a complex question you'd have to ask them. I'm sure they have a reason, at least in their minds, for it.

Dude. Mental illness is not a freaking social experiment what the hell. It happens. People may go into it with the wrong conceptions but those kinds of responses are disturbed. Whether they willingly leave or not if soldiers exhibit them they're not doing it for fun and if they are they still need help. That is the behavior of disturbed individuals and they have a duty to address it seriously for the safety of the rest. They're not pussys if they're genuinally disturbed. They're freaking sick.

This post has been edited by Ayane112 on Nov 10 2009, 08:51 AM

Ayane, are you inferring that the islamic religion is a mental condition? Hasan isn't a head case. The more we find out about him shows he was in command of his faculties.

Also, you're ignorant of how the military works. Douchebags like Hasan are supposed to be doing the job where if a soldier is having a problem they can go and get help.

Not really. What he's showing is a steady loss of mental faculties in an extended period of time, where he unfortunately centered on the religious side of his life, presumably due to being harassed because of his faith, or believing so, eventually lashing out in the worst way possible.

I fail to see how anyone who one day goes on a shooting spree could be considered sane. Even the suicide bombers need months of indoctrination and brainwashing to the edges of sanity to actually go through with their actions. This man pretty much did the same to himself in response to his ostracization.

No they don't need months they only need one good threat against their family and you will find many that will kill themselves to preserve their family members.

...Dude what the hell is wrong with you. I never once said that and it's insulting to insinuate it. I was talking mental illness in our armed forces in general since you brought up your amusing little stories about guys slashing their wrists and trying to OD.

I was calling you out on calling soldiers that tried to self harm 'Fucking pussies.' You were treating it like no one could ever develop mental problems unless they'd seen combat. That's not even close to true. I was talking in general and made it specific I wasn't referring to him; it was about what you said actually. I was talking in reference to what I saw as, you being a jerk at people that had serious problems. You're really a piece of work and freaking sickening.

Edit: I have no problem with any religion nor would I ever. I am actually pretty goddamned offended at this insinuation. So good job dude. Gold star for trolling. Because I can't see how you could remotely say that except to insult me.

This post has been edited by Ayane112 on Nov 10 2009, 03:10 PM

The last time I checked, extensive indoctrination was the preferred method, often starting from private conversations with a mole in some Islamic school, and ending to a secret training camp. The people who work under threats aren't exactly reliable - semi-volunteers who have been brainwashed for good measure are.

Yes Its the "preferred" method but not the only method.
When i was in Iraq the first time the method they used to get their suicide drivers/bombers was to threaten to kill their family's and if they were successful they would provide the family with money to compensate them for their loss. One guys family got something around 20,000 US because he was able to kill a coalition soldier.

I can agree with you in some ways, but not in all. For one, I agree this guy is the biggest piece of shit, even more so than the 9/11 jihadists, for all the reasons you mentioned. Psychological problems or not, this guy still made a choice to betray his country and his fellow soldiers. (Well unless it turns out that he committed it during a psychotic episode. (ie. a TOTAL break with reality).

But that's the thing, when you put on the uniform, you should be a US soldier, not a Muslim, or a Christian, or anything else. It seems to me the assholes who tormented him because of his religion are as much at fault for this as he is, for forcing him to be different, to stand out. And that's why your suggestions of segregation are bullshit.

The Japanese were discriminated against during WWII not for any rational reasons but because we believed that, by the very fact of being Japanese, they were untrustworthy and two faced. (That's also why we gave all the ones in the US a happy happy forced vacation to happy happy vacation homes). You're not suggesting that Muslims are, by the very essence of being Muslim, untrustworthy and two faced?

This guy most likely was traumatized while treating the soldiers that came back from the front lines. While a psychiatrist doesn't have to see horrific physical wounds like say a surgeon would, the mental trauma he has to deal with while helping hurting soldiers cope can be just as taxing and draining. Not to mention the frustrations of dealing with the system.

It's not like the US military doesn't have much higher rates of mental illness than the civilian world just to begin with.

This post has been edited by harahara on Nov 10 2009, 05:52 PM

Treason is a fairly narrowly defined crime. Y'know, when you're on your own soil and go on a killing spree without necessarily being backed by any particular organization, what that actually makes you is a murderer. I'm not sure if I think it more strange that we have to define this guy as a traitor or if being defined as a mass murderer isn't bad enough. I don't feel like I have to define the guy as a traitor in order to be pissed off at what he did.

I dunno yet whether or not he was directly allying with terrorist groups, but there is this thing now. Apparently one time that Hasan was supposed to give a medical presentation, he instead gave a powerpoint presentation on why Muslims should be excused from duty as conscientious objectors so that they wouldn't have to go and kill other Muslims. The base idea might be more that he was just disgusted at the treatment of Islam / the perception of Islam or whatever, but that seems to pale behind the larger question of, Why was no one asking about this guy before all this shit happened?

Combination of:
1. Fear of being labeled as a Muslim hater. The whole PC stuff is usually heavier in garrison units, e.g. medical center like the one in Ft. Hood.
2. The system not being fast enough to connect the dots and conclude that the guy was a serious security risk.

Most likely, more effort will be focused on preventive measures, e.g. surveys, reporting system, counselings, self-reporting, buddy system, seminars, conscientious objectors, etc.

Consideration of extreme measures, e.g. banning deployment of Muslim troops to Middle East, are ludicrous knee-jerk reactions that would hurt the armed forces in the long run.