As you've no doubt heard by now, an Army soldier at Fort Hood, Texas opened fire, killed 12 people, and wounded 31 people on Thursday afternoon. Contrary to earlier reports, the gunman, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, was not killed when he was shot, and he is in custody at the moment. It's now believed that he acted alone. We don't know much now, but we do know that Maj. Hasan was scheduled to deploy to Iraq soon.
In no way do I condone the actions of Maj. Hasan, and I believe he needs to be punished in some fashion for his actions. Indeed, it concerns me that Maj. Hasan has supposedly said that "Muslims had a right to rise up and attack Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan." Was he saying this because he is a sympathizer with the extremists in the Middle East, or was he just saying this because he recognizes that countries have the right to defend themselves?
I also believe that this is probably one sign of how the stress of deployment can negatively affect soldiers. Maj. Hasan had never been deployed to Iraq, but we know that many other soldiers at Fort Hood have been deployed somewhere in the Middle East multiple times. I've never served in the military (although I would have done so had health concerns not precluded me from doing so). I can imagine, though, how stressful it must be for soldiers who are being deployed to an area where their presence is generally not welcomed (this is a change from earlier in the "war on terror"). They may or may not believe in the mission that they're being called to carry out, and yet most of them carry out their duties with honor. Given that they are in a hostile environment, receiving enemy fire from opposing soldiers and scorn from local residents, I am in some ways surprised how honorable most soldiers are and have been.
Among other things, the fact that a soldier has been so affected by just the idea of the possibility of going to fight and die for something in which he does not believe really makes me question just how much good the American presence in the Middle East is doing. Fighting for freedom is a wonderful and noble cause, and that is one of the main reasons why I initially supported the "war on terror" and all that goes along with it. Now, however, I've changed my tune a bit. Is our presence there really serving to make the Middle East more free? Sure, Iraq now has "democratic" elections, but at what cost? Are the elections truly free and democratic when the citizens are afraid to cast their votes for one candidate over another for fear of either direct or indirect reprisal, either at the hands of some mercenary thugs, or at the hands of a government? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I've really begun to think about whether or not our presence there is doing more harm than good.
On the other hand, let's take the United States' needs and desires into account for a minute. Are our freedoms, objectives, needs, and desires really being protected by the US having such a massive presence in the region? Again, I don't pretend to know all of the answers, but I will say this: while we must always be vigilant and ready to act with force should the need arise to protect our country, I think that our interests, as well as the interests of the rest of the world, would be generally better served if the US would insist that countries shoulder more of the load of defending themselves. In other words, I think that the US needs to stop being the "world police"...if we don't, there could be disastrous consequences, both in foreign lands and here at home. And those disastrous consequences could once again include a soldier killing one or more of their own if we are not careful to treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve. That respect and dignity, in my view, includes ensuring that enough soldiers are available for battle so as to avoid multiple deployments if at all possible.
