“If you See Something, Say Something”: A response to the Fort Hood Shooting
Mr. Brett Goldman - ICT Graduate Intern
With Det. (Ret). Mordecai Dzikansky - ICT Associate
The November 5th 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, Texas should serve as a wake-up call for decision makers in governments and militaries throughout the world. The actions of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan come at a time where it is considered politically incorrect—or even unfashionable—to point fingers at individuals with the potential for radicalization. Yet what if the coworkers and superiors of Maj. Hasan had the insight to suspect a conflict between his religious beliefs and the mission? Had they acted on it, would their suspicions have fallen on deaf ears? Would they have been heeded? Or would they have fallen victim to seemingly unnecessary social conventions of political correctness? In the days following the attack at Fort Hood, information continues to surface which suggests that, not only did Maj. Hasan sound the alarms that there is a danger of Muslim soldiers becoming radicalized but that he himself could have been among the potential radical Islamists in the ranks.
The United States Military is just as diverse as the nation itself and members of the armed forces have extremely diverse motives for making the decision to serve their country. For generations the Military has been a conduit for recent immigrants to gain citizenship; a means for under-privileged Americans to gain access to an education; and a chance for patriotic Americans to serve their country—to give something back. However it is often the case that proud and idealistic individuals become disillusioned or perhaps, disenfranchised, when they are made to feel unwelcome by their comrades. In more extreme cases, they may feel that their service on the far-flung battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan are effectively futile.
The purpose of this commentary is not to set an accusatory tone towards Muslims, in fact, it’s purpose is just the opposite: to serve as a reminder that not just Muslims, but people of all faiths play an integral part in the system—a system which needs this diversity to survive. Yet, to those serving in this system, the idea of cultural sensitivity is so important that the warning signs exhibited by Maj. Hasan in the years and months prior to the attack could have fallen on deaf ears because of the risk of coming off as culturally insensitive.
Following the attack, relevant and irrelevant facts about Maj. Hasan’s life were quick to surface. Where he went to school, which mosque he attended, his relations with his neighbors, and—most relevant to this commentary—his service record. It is a fair assessment to make that Maj. Hasan did not have it “easy” being a Muslim serving in the United States Army. In a time when the country has two theaters of operation in two Muslim countries, there is no doubt that an anti-Muslim or anti-Arab sentiment can arise within the ranks. This being said, the Washington Post has reported that during the summer of 2007, Maj. Hasan lectured to Army mental health staff on the subject of Islam, suicide bombers, threats and the conflict that Muslim soldiers could have from fighting in a Muslim country[1]. During this lecture, Hasan thoroughly explains to his superiors exactly what the threat is of radicalization of Muslim soldiers and how as a mental-health professional to observe the warning signs of such behavior.
What is most troubling regarding the reports of Maj. Hasan’s 2007 presentation is that he states outright that “Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as ‘Conscientous objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.”[2] This is troubling for a variety of reasons, the most obvious being, why did his superiors not act on this information? Secondly, why have other soldiers not come forward to express their concern about their comrades?
While it is too soon to determine how the government’s policies will be shaped, it is clear that a serious discussion will need to take place on various levels regarding cultural sensitivity—specifically, a cultural sensitivity that some might deem as “politically incorrect”. If anything can be gleaned from the actions of Maj. Hasan, it is that he had warned his superiors of the personal and religious conflicts that Muslim soldiers might face. This discussion must include the consequences that arise when someone like Maj. Hasan (a Muslim) gets charged with debriefing soldiers fresh from the battlefield with physical and emotional scars, many of which are directed towards Muslims. Did Maj. Hasan develop his radical beliefs from his interaction with these soldiers? Was he affected in such a manner by hearing soldiers’ hatred towards Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq? It is clear then, to an outside observer after the fact that Major Hasan should not have been allowed to serve in the capacity that he did. Yet if someone were to outright say this in the framework of the Military, they could be labeled as culturally insensitive and create a whole new set of issues.
The fact of the matter remains: Armies, intelligence services and security services not just in the United States but throughout the world cannot function without the hard work of thousands of officers and agents from a Muslim background. Yet, serious consideration must be taken into account when assigning them duties that might cause conflict with their cultural and religious background. Had the army taken Major Hasan’s presentation into account, soldiers could have been assigned with greater cultural sensitivity and not be placed in situations that would result in radicalization.
See Something, Say Something
In a recent conversation with former New York City Police Department Det. Mordecai Dzikansky, the idea of “If You See Something, Say Something” was discussed as a response to the recent Fort Hood attack. The ad campaign of “If You See Something, Say Something” was created to emphasize to passengers that if they see something that makes them uncomfortable, they should say something to the authorities (and not take a chance on a possible terrorist attack). This is further placed in the public consciousness by appearing on posters and advertisements throughout the NYC Metro System and on local TV stations. Following 9/11 various other municipalities picked this up and the NYPD began a larger campaign to reach ordinary citizens. In terms of a tactic for counterterrorism, this has proven very effective in at least raising the concept in the public eye, because if something looks out of place, it should be acted upon and not left to cause possible harm.
Detractors of “see something, say something” might argue that it places the public in an panicked and accusatory state, creating what some might describe as something close to a police state. But it should be noted that it serves to do nothing more than to protect citizens from a possible terrorist attack. Evidence from the Fort Hood shootings suggests that Maj. Hasan’s coworkers felt he was exhibiting signs of radicalization, but they were afraid to act on such feelings for fear of being wrong or alienated. Had a mechanism existed allowing for his coworkers to address their concerns, such as “If you see something, say something”, perhaps the attack could have been thwarted. A mechanism such as this would have to be protected from frivolous use by feuding coworkers and be reserved for serious threats and concerns, such as those of the coworkers of Maj. Hasan.
As information about this case continues surface and the motivation behind Maj. Hasan’s attack become clearer, actions will have to be taken to ensure such an attack will not be allowed to happen again. Perhaps the implementation of the “see something, say something” model will be effective to combat against radicalization in the military or perhaps policy and decision makers will approach situations with greater consideration of cultural sensitivity. These policy and decision makers will need to understand while Muslim soldiers play a key role in government, military, intelligence and security matters, they should not be given assignments that can cause conflict with their core beliefs. Only then will we have learned from the lessons of Maj. Hasan and be able to continue to effectively utilize those who have worked so hard for our country.
Notes:
[1] Washington Post, 10 November 2009
[2] ibid