Tweet
Dispatch, The Atlantic, November 15, 2009 We need more Muslims in the ranks
of the US military-not fewer. by Robert D. Kaplan
Responding to Fort Hood
The massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 soldiers were shot and killed
by Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, paradoxically took my memory back to April 2004,
when I was embedded with a Marine battalion during the first battle of
Fallujah. The battalion just happened to have in the ranks a corporal of
Syrian descent who did double duty as the commander's translator for his
meetings with the Iraqis. The young Muslim corporal was arguably the most
valuable member of the battalion: simply by his presence he was able to cast
the battalion in a different, more positive light among the locals.
The United States military needs more troops of Muslim origin within its
ranks. We need a military that looks like the larger world for the global
challenges ahead, such as helping to protect the "commons," the air space
and sea lanes. Think of the Navy's slogan in its new television recruitment
commercials: "A Global Force for Good."
Inevitably, a minute percentage of these Muslim recruits may be influenced
by jihadist propaganda, which certainly seems to have been the case with
Maj. Hasan. So what do we do?
Better security surveillance and background checks, as well as better
coordination within the defense bureaucracy to ferret out troublesome
individuals, make sense. But the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, had
it right when he said that he was fearful of a backlash against Muslims
within the ranks. Behind the scenes the military needs to be extra vigilant;
publicly the military needs to be even more welcoming to minorities. As my
Atlantic colleague Jeffrey Goldberg puts it, we need to have it both ways.
Numerous frustrated voices declare that we shouldn't be shy about declaring
that this attack was an incident of Islamic terrorism. That it may well turn
out to be, but we would lose far more than we would gain by waving the
bloody shirt. The ultimate strategic goal of al-Qaeda is to turn our
struggle with it into a "clash of civilizations." If potential Muslim
recruits to the US military quietly decide not to enlist for fear of
retribution or prejudice inside the barracks, that would be a victory for
al-Qaeda. The consequences for terrorists must be tough, but our rhetoric
must remain ecumenical. We should let the investigation take its course,
mete out punishment, and quickly move on.
Consider the "Clash of Civilizations" itself, an idea propounded by the late
Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington in 1993 in "Foreign Affairs," and
three years later turned into a book. I defended Huntington's idea in a
profile I did of him in the Atlantic (December 2001), written before 9/11. I
argued that his idea was right if a bit simplistic, but it was no less valid
a bumper sticker for the world we were entering than that of the "Cold War,"
which was also simplistic and didn't encompass many of the trends of the
1945-89 world, particularly in developing countries. At the same time, I
would have been horrified if any official, speaking on behalf of the US
government, had subscribed publicly to Huntington's theory. Huntington could
expound it because he was a political scientist, dedicated not to improving
the world but to writing honestly about what he thought was going on in it.
I could subscribe to it as a writer. But because the only way to win a clash
of civilizations is to deny that you are fighting one in the first place,
government and military officials must always take the high road in their
public statements. That's why, while we improve our security procedures
behind the scenes, we should deal with the massacre at Fort Hood in as low
key a manner as possible. More Maj. Hasans may lurk in the barracks and
public squares. The way to find them out is not in a shrill witch hunt, but
quietly, methodically, and legally, even as we open up our military to a
wider spectrum of recruits.
The massacre at Fort Hood strikes at the heart of our democracy. We should
be careful to heal the wound, not to inflame it by undermining our own
reputation for tolerance. The more we can fight this war behind the scenes,
the better off we will all be.
Robert D. Kaplan is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and a senior
fellow at the Center for a New American Security, in Washington, D.C.
What do you guys think?
of the US military-not fewer. by Robert D. Kaplan
Responding to Fort Hood
The massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 soldiers were shot and killed
by Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, paradoxically took my memory back to April 2004,
when I was embedded with a Marine battalion during the first battle of
Fallujah. The battalion just happened to have in the ranks a corporal of
Syrian descent who did double duty as the commander's translator for his
meetings with the Iraqis. The young Muslim corporal was arguably the most
valuable member of the battalion: simply by his presence he was able to cast
the battalion in a different, more positive light among the locals.
The United States military needs more troops of Muslim origin within its
ranks. We need a military that looks like the larger world for the global
challenges ahead, such as helping to protect the "commons," the air space
and sea lanes. Think of the Navy's slogan in its new television recruitment
commercials: "A Global Force for Good."
Inevitably, a minute percentage of these Muslim recruits may be influenced
by jihadist propaganda, which certainly seems to have been the case with
Maj. Hasan. So what do we do?
Better security surveillance and background checks, as well as better
coordination within the defense bureaucracy to ferret out troublesome
individuals, make sense. But the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, had
it right when he said that he was fearful of a backlash against Muslims
within the ranks. Behind the scenes the military needs to be extra vigilant;
publicly the military needs to be even more welcoming to minorities. As my
Atlantic colleague Jeffrey Goldberg puts it, we need to have it both ways.
Numerous frustrated voices declare that we shouldn't be shy about declaring
that this attack was an incident of Islamic terrorism. That it may well turn
out to be, but we would lose far more than we would gain by waving the
bloody shirt. The ultimate strategic goal of al-Qaeda is to turn our
struggle with it into a "clash of civilizations." If potential Muslim
recruits to the US military quietly decide not to enlist for fear of
retribution or prejudice inside the barracks, that would be a victory for
al-Qaeda. The consequences for terrorists must be tough, but our rhetoric
must remain ecumenical. We should let the investigation take its course,
mete out punishment, and quickly move on.
Consider the "Clash of Civilizations" itself, an idea propounded by the late
Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington in 1993 in "Foreign Affairs," and
three years later turned into a book. I defended Huntington's idea in a
profile I did of him in the Atlantic (December 2001), written before 9/11. I
argued that his idea was right if a bit simplistic, but it was no less valid
a bumper sticker for the world we were entering than that of the "Cold War,"
which was also simplistic and didn't encompass many of the trends of the
1945-89 world, particularly in developing countries. At the same time, I
would have been horrified if any official, speaking on behalf of the US
government, had subscribed publicly to Huntington's theory. Huntington could
expound it because he was a political scientist, dedicated not to improving
the world but to writing honestly about what he thought was going on in it.
I could subscribe to it as a writer. But because the only way to win a clash
of civilizations is to deny that you are fighting one in the first place,
government and military officials must always take the high road in their
public statements. That's why, while we improve our security procedures
behind the scenes, we should deal with the massacre at Fort Hood in as low
key a manner as possible. More Maj. Hasans may lurk in the barracks and
public squares. The way to find them out is not in a shrill witch hunt, but
quietly, methodically, and legally, even as we open up our military to a
wider spectrum of recruits.
The massacre at Fort Hood strikes at the heart of our democracy. We should
be careful to heal the wound, not to inflame it by undermining our own
reputation for tolerance. The more we can fight this war behind the scenes,
the better off we will all be.
Robert D. Kaplan is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and a senior
fellow at the Center for a New American Security, in Washington, D.C.
What do you guys think?
Comment