Rapporten om Fort Hood-massakren unngår omhyggelig å gå inn på hva som drev psykiateren Nidal Malik Hasan til å drepe så mange som mulig av sine medsoldater. Ordet islam synes å være tabu.

Rapporten på 86 sider nevner utrolig ikke Hasan ved navn en eneste gang og bruker bare en side på ideologi og da indirekte:

The report lumps in radical Islam with other fundamentalist religious beliefs, saying that «religious fundamentalism alone is not a risk factor» and that «religious-based violence is not confined to members of fundamentalist groups.»

Mediene har skrevet mye om Hasans radikalisering og hvordan han delte sin overbevisning med kolleger. At dette ikke er behandlet i rapporten, provoserer mange.

Hasan wore his radical Islamic faith and its jihadist tendencies in the same way he wore his Army uniform. He allegedly proselytized within the ranks, spoke out against the wars his Army was waging in Muslim countries and shouted «Allahu akbar» (God is great) as he gunned down his fellow soldiers. Those who served alongside Hasan find the Pentagon review wanting. «The report demonstrates that we are unwilling to identify and confront the real enemy of political Islam,» says a former military colleague of Hasan, speaking privately because he was ordered not to talk about the case. «Political correctness has brainwashed us to the point that we no longer understand our heritage and cannot admit who, or what, the enemy stands for.»

Unnfallenheten er et brudd på hevdvunne prinsipper om å konfrontere motstanderen. Radikal islams styrke er overbevisningen. Den som ikke vil ta opp ideologien og prøve å forstå den, har små sjanser til å nedkjempe den.

The apparent lack of curiosity into what allegedly drove Hasan to kill isn’t in keeping with the military’s ethos; it’s a remarkable omission for the U.S. armed forces, whose young officers are often ordered to read Sun Tzu’s The Art of War with its command to know your enemy. In midcareer, they study the contrast between capabilities and intentions, which is why they aren’t afraid of a British nuclear weapon but do fear the prospect of Iran getting one.

Yet the leaders of the two-month Pentagon review, former Army Secretary Togo West and the Navy’s onetime top admiral, Vernon Clark, told reporters last week that they didn’t drill down into Hasan’s motives. «Our concern is with actions and effects, not necessarily with motivations,» West said. Added Clark: «We certainly do not cite a particular group.» Part of their reticence, they said, was to avoid running afoul of the criminal probe of Hasan that is now under way. Both are declining interview requests before their congressional testimony, a Pentagon spokesman said.

Det er en fantastisk uttalelse at en granskning av en politisk massemorder ikke er interessert i motivene. Tidligere marinesjef, John Lehman, som var medlem av 9/11-kommisjonen, er rystet over den politiske korrektheten. Den ligger som en klam hånd over all aktivitet.

John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 commission and Navy Secretary during the Reagan Administration, says a reluctance to cause offense by citing Hasan’s view of his Muslim faith and the U.S. military’s activities in Muslim countries as a possible trigger for his alleged rampage reflects a problem that has gotten worse in the 40 years that Lehman has spent in and around the U.S. military. The Pentagon report’s silence on Islamic extremism «shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become,» he told TIME on Tuesday. «It’s definitely getting worse, and is now so ingrained that people no longer smirk when it happens.»

The Fort Hood Report: Why No Mention of Islam?