Nidal Malik Hasan: analyzing the roots of a deadly outburst.

We are all thinking about the same thing this morning, right? Is Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood Army Officer who killed twelve and wounded 31 yesterday, crazy? Or is he an Islamic revolutionary?

The answer is complicated. Hasan, a loner who reportedly was bullied post-9/11 due to his Muslim identity, in some ways fits the mold of his fellow Virginia Tech student, Korean-American Seung Hui Cho, who also used two handguns to kill a large number of his fellows. In this interpretation of yesterday's horrific event, it fits into the puzzle of the Columbine High School Syndrome. 

But at the same time, there is considerable evidence that Hasan could also be categorized as a typical European-style recruit to fundamentalist Islam.  He was not a poor street kid in rags, he was middle class. He was the product of a family of West Bank Palestinians who first took refuge in Jordan before moving to the United States to seek safety and wealth. Where Jordan is concerned, it should be recalled that Zarkawi, the Beast of Baghdad, was also a Jordanian. Jordan's moderate politics are noteworthy, but there exist some Jordanians who are far more radical than their own government. Hasan posted on the internet six months ago a blog entry in which he argued that a suicide bomber can be equated with a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades. This is very typical of European style "sleeper" backpack bombers.  They are attempting to stand up for the idea that committing a violent act against perceived enemies of Islam is not the "cowardly" act often described in US political speeches, but rather an act of self sacrifice and utter idealism. Unfortunately, Hasan's post was subject to misinterpretation. Was he analyzing the motivations of suicide bombers, or was he implying that he admired them and wished to join them?

One common thread uniting Hasan with both the tradition of American High School or College shooters, and the European backpack bombers, is that there can often be danger signs that are ignored.  It's not so much that Hasan's act came out of left field, it is that there were danger signs that his supervisors were not able to recognize as danger signs. Hasan did not want to go serve in Iraq, where he was scheduled to go. Seung Hui Cho, and Klebold and Harris, all issued danger signals that were ignored.

In the wake of this event, some will say, there is no place for Muslims in the US Army, or in the United States of America. This is over-reaction. In his recent book "How to Win a Cosmic War", Reza Aslan explains that the only effective way to win such a war is to refuse to fight it. Self Defense against terrorist cells is quite valid, but when the primarily Chrisitian West is tempted to react to terror events by tarring all Muslims with the same brush, we are tempted to sidetrack ourselves into an endless and unwinnable conflagration. It's not the answer, people. It's also not the Main Event of the 21st Century. Our century will be looked upon as the century in which the human race faced the dreadful challenge of decelerating our population growth down to zero while still managing to feed, educate, and keep healthy a teeming crowd of nine or ten billion without causing the collapse of the natural systems of our biosphere. The Christian/Muslim thing is a mere distraction, painful though it may be. 

So let's ask some questions, and let's do a better job of not ignoring warning signals. But let's also recognize that we are going to have people pick up a gun in the United States of America and kill a roomful of people. It's just going to happen. We could all wear guns, and of course many will suggest that as the ultimate solution, but I am not interested in packing so count me out.

Your open minded and insightful reply to my post is solicited.