Army Psychiatrist kills 11 at Ft. Hood

[Upgrayedd]

If Hasan had been a suicide bomber from TQ, no one would have that problem.

Exactly. If he was a suicide bomber, I would have no problem labeling him as an Islamic extremist whose religion drove him to murder. But he used a couple handguns instead. Sorry to nitpick, but that point right there is why I disagree with your entire argument. Prove it wrong if you will, this entire case is as complex as is it terrible and I won't pretend to be an expert in this field, but I feel as though it is a major differentiator between the two personas that are being extrapolated from his actions.

He fits the profile of an office shooter (whose religion it would appear played a major role in his downward spiral .)

There are so many ways he could have killed potentially hundreds of people if that was his intention, instead, IMO, he executed a somewhat sloppy attack (in which he expected to be killed) in lieu of old fashioned suicide.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[orbitsurgMD]

Radical Islam exists. . . .

To argue that Hasan was not a Muslim is the ultimate example of the "no true scotsman" fallacy. His interpretation of Islam clearly was part of why he chose to murder. The same forces that kept people from acting on their concerns about him are what are keeping people from analyzing this attack honestly. If Hasan had been a suicide bomber from TQ, no one would have that problem.

I think following that line of discussion will not be fruitful. He was a Muslim, and a very bad one, IMO, but apparently some will think otherwise.

Calling him a terrorist has the same effect. Sure, he terrorized by doing what he did. Was he a terrorist conspirator? I guess that will depend on what the investigations uncover, but thus far, the FBI says he was not. But certainly he seems to be a sympathizer and imitator. I think you can be a terrorist either way, as well as a traitor and a killer.

Was he crazy? And if crazy, was he affected enough to bear less than full responsibility for his actions? That will be an important question going forward as concerns his fate. At what point does zealotry become something like monomania? Can paranoia masquerade as Islamic extremism? Or can one be so convinced of one's correctness in religious views, and so narcissistically disordered of personality that one allows oneself the latitude to kill one's fellow soldiers because one thinks they are not deserving of their lives?

 

[Mirror Form]

Exactly. If he was a suicide bomber, I would have no problem labeling him as an Islamic extremist whose religion drove him to murder. But he used a couple handguns instead. Sorry to nitpick, but that point right there is why I disagree with your entire argument.

He probably used handguns b/c that's much easier than building a bomb. It's unlikely that he was expecting to survive his killing spree.

But thank you for proving my earlier point about how the PC-brainwashed crowd will continue to grasp at every possible straw, to find someway to absolve Islam from any blame.

 

[Enkidu]

I think that what's going on here should be pretty obvious. You've got a major who is unpopular and is getting bad OERs, he has no friends or social support network and feels ostracized for his religion. On top of all that, he's committed himself to a lifetime in the army and desperately wants to get out. This is exactly the type of guy that will snap and kill people. The fact that he got some religious justification for it doesn't show that it was religiously motivated.

On the surface it's actually pretty ridiculous to imagine that this guy was a radical muslim extremist. Counting ROTC and USUHS, The guy was in the army for 21 years (8 years enlisted + 4 ROTC + 4 USUHS + 4 residency + 1 fellowship). What was he, a sleeper agent? Him snapping probably had a lot more to do with the fact that he still owed the army another 11 years on top of what he'd done, he was treated like ****, and he was depressed and angry. The fact that he yelled "Allahu akbar" isn't a big revelation either. If he was catholic he probably would have said a hail mary.

Actually, this was probably about as islamic as an abortion clinic bombing is catholic. You can't say that they had nothing to do with religion, but their link to religion is probably not causative. The major difference is that by emphasizing the religious aspect of Hasan's killing rampage we risk further alienating other muslim soldiers in the army... and what benefit do we get? This is just like McCarthyism for the war on terror. Whenever we can blame a problem on radical Islam, we will do it. It may be a tenuous link, but it at least allows us to pin the blame on our enemy, rather than on ourselves.

 

[MSS07]

I think that what's going on here should be pretty obvious. You've got a major who is unpopular and is getting bad OERs, he has no friends or social support network and feels ostracized for his religion. On top of all that, he's committed himself to a lifetime in the army and desperately wants to get out. This is exactly the type of guy that will snap and kill people. The fact that he got some religious justification for it doesn't show that it was religiously motivated.

On the surface it's actually pretty ridiculous to imagine that this guy was a radical muslim extremist. Counting ROTC and USUHS, The guy was in the army for 21 years (8 years enlisted + 4 ROTC + 4 USUHS + 4 residency + 1 fellowship). What was he, a sleeper agent? Him snapping probably had a lot more to do with the fact that he still owed the army another 11 years on top of what he'd done, he was treated like ****, and he was depressed and angry. The fact that he yelled "Allahu akbar" isn't a big revelation either. If he was catholic he probably would have said a hail mary.

Actually, this was probably about as islamic as an abortion clinic bombing is catholic. You can't say that they had nothing to do with religion, but their link to religion is probably not causative. The major difference is that by emphasizing the religious aspect of Hasan's killing rampage we risk further alienating other muslim soldiers in the army... and what benefit do we get? This is just like McCarthyism for the war on terror. Whenever we can blame a problem on radical Islam, we will do it. It may be a tenuous link, but it at least allows us to pin the blame on our enemy, rather than on ourselves.

except the protestant extremist killed one man (who in his mind was a murderer of babies) he didn't go to time square and blow himself up because he was mad about abortions (I am not saying what he did was right, its horrendous BUT ITS DIFFERENT, and I don't think you can make that comparison). Whereas this guy killed 13 innocent civilians, and the 9/11 perpetrators killed thousands.

 

[a1qwerty55]

more annoying commentary.

 

[Perrotfish]

See, I see the abortion doc shooter as someone who WAS influenced by their religion. They're sane (more or less), they have a good justification for their action from their religion (as they interpret it), and, most importantly, they have no other factors pushing them to target the people they're targeting. What makes the Major NOT a religious shooter, in my mind, is that he had plenty of things influencing him to shoot people that had nothing to do with his religion.

If this guy was a Muslim plumber who shot half a dozen plumbers I would say that he was an office shooter who happened to be Muslim. If he was a Muslim plumber who shot up an Army base I would say he was a terrorist that was influenced by radical Islam. Obviously the problem here is that this is a guy who shot up his office, which happens to be an Army base, so it makes it very difficult to seperate the radical Islam from the crazy office worker. Now so far I've heard a lot about this guy hating his job and his life and very little (though not nothing) about him being won over by a philosophy of radical Islam, so I'm still going with office shooter. But some of the distinctions made here, like handguns vs. suicide vests, or the number of innocents killed, are just crazy.

 

[Enkidu]

See, I see the abortion doc shooter as someone who WAS influenced by their religion. They're sane (more or less), they have a good justification for their action from their religion (as they interpret it), and, most importantly, they have no other factors pushing them to target the people they're targeting. What makes the Major NOT a religious shooter, in my mind, is that he had plenty of things influencing him to shoot people that had nothing to do with his religion.

I see your point here. I was thinking that in order for it to be an act of religious terrorism there had to be encouragement from the religious institution to do some bad thing, and that this encouragement had to cause the person to do it.

In the case of the abortion clinic bomber, I don't think that any element of the catholic church is actually encouraging it (though I may be naive). In the case of Hasan, there is a clear segment within Islam that encourages what he did, but I think he had his own unrelated motives for actually doing it.

Regardless of what his motive was, though. The attempt to label this as a terrorist act is clearly a political move, and a heavy-handed one at that. Wouldn't it be great to blame someone else for this guy? He was a career soldier born and raised in the US, who couldn't even speak Arabic to have a conversation with his Arab gas station attendant, apparently his only friend. And isn't it a little bit suspicious that he decided to become a jihadi only after he found out he was being deployed?

 

[tulane06]

I see your point here. I was thinking that in order for it to be an act of religious terrorism there had to be encouragement from the religious institution to do some bad thing, and that this encouragement had to cause the person to do it.

In the case of the abortion clinic bomber, I don't think that any element of the catholic church is actually encouraging it (though I may be naive). In the case of Hasan, there is a clear segment within Islam that encourages what he did, but I think he had his own unrelated motives for actually doing it.

Regardless of what his motive was, though. The attempt to label this as a terrorist act is clearly a political move, and a heavy-handed one at that. Wouldn't it be great to blame someone else for this guy? He was a career soldier born and raised in the US, who couldn't even speak Arabic to have a conversation with his Arab gas station attendant, apparently his only friend. And isn't it a little bit suspicious that he decided to become a jihadi only after he found out he was being deployed?

I would argue that to deny this was terrorism is also a political move. While we don't have all the answers yet and none of us can definitively say what happened, I believe it is naive to simply write this guy off as another office shooter. In addition, I disagree with your assertion that he decided to become a jihadi only after he found out he was going to be deployed. He was making pro-jihad statements as far back as his residency and fellowship years.

 

[Perrotfish]

I would argue that to deny this was terrorism is also a political move. While we don't have all the answers yet and none of us can definitively say what happened, I believe it is naive to simply write this guy off as another office shooter. In addition, I disagree with your assertion that he decided to become a jihadi only after he found out he was going to be deployed. He was making pro-jihad statements as far back as his residency and fellowship years.

Part of the reason that I like to think of him as an office shooter is that I like to err on the side of the fixable problem. The 9-11 terrorists were/are fixable (killable): we had foreign born islamic extremists, trained in paramilitary camps in a foreign nation. We at least theoretically should have been able to kill everyone involved, plug the holes in our national security, rebuilt our reputation abroad, and have gone on with our lives. Maybe our gameplan wasn't the best and that didn't quite happen, but it was theoretically a fixable problem.

If this was 'terrorism', though, it's not the fixable kind. It's the kind where a crazy guy learns about a crazy religion through the internet and maybe a couple of crazy guys that he knows, and then decides all on his own to go crazy in a very murderous way. I don't know what you do about that, other than spread a general prejudice to 'look out for Muslims', which I don't see helping. If this is a disgruntled office shooter, though, then this IS fixable, at least partially. We can do things like make sure that people never have 11 year obligations, both to make sure that the servicemen don't feel trapped and to make sure that the military doesn't feel obligated to retain crazy personel just because they've agreed to a Charlie Weis-like lifetime contract which they paid for up front. We can also make the psychological screening better, the security better, and the working conditions better. We can hold the people who failed to monitor their personel accountable for this.

To me 'terrorism' is a good label when it causes us to confront our problems, and a bad label when it allows us to avoid them. In this case I see the word 'terrorism' mainly as a tool for maintaining the status quo.

 

[notdeadyet]

Part of the reason that I like to think of him as an office shooter is that I like to err on the side of the fixable problem. The 9-11 terrorists were/are fixable (killable): we had foreign born islamic extremists, trained in paramilitary camps in a foreign nation. We at least theoretically should have been able to kill everyone involved, plug the holes in our national security, rebuilt our reputation abroad, and have gone on with our lives. Maybe our gameplan wasn't the best and that didn't quite happen, but it was theoretically a fixable problem.

If this was 'terrorism', though, it's not the fixable kind. It's the kind where a crazy guy learns about a crazy religion through the internet and maybe a couple of crazy guys that he knows, and then decides all on his own to go crazy in a very murderous way. I don't know what you do about that, other than spread a general prejudice to 'look out for Muslims', which I don't see helping. ...

To me 'terrorism' is a good label when it causes us to confront our problems, and a bad label when it allows us to avoid them. In this case I see the word 'terrorism' mainly as a tool for maintaining the status quo.

Great analysis, this. For the bolded sentence, my worry is that not only does that not help, it actually breeds more folks who turn to violence.

 

[Mirror Form]

I think that what's going on here should be pretty obvious. You've got a major who is unpopular and is getting bad OERs, he has no friends or social support network and feels ostracized for his religion. On top of all that, he's committed himself to a lifetime in the army and desperately wants to get out. This is exactly the type of guy that will snap and kill people. The fact that he got some religious justification for it doesn't show that it was religiously motivated.

On the surface it's actually pretty ridiculous to imagine that this guy was a radical muslim extremist. Counting ROTC and USUHS, The guy was in the army for 21 years (8 years enlisted + 4 ROTC + 4 USUHS + 4 residency + 1 fellowship). What was he, a sleeper agent? Him snapping probably had a lot more to do with the fact that he still owed the army another 11 years on top of what he'd done, he was treated like ****, and he was depressed and angry. The fact that he yelled "Allahu akbar" isn't a big revelation either. If he was catholic he probably would have said a hail mary.

Actually, this was probably about as islamic as an abortion clinic bombing is catholic. You can't say that they had nothing to do with religion, but their link to religion is probably not causative. The major difference is that by emphasizing the religious aspect of Hasan's killing rampage we risk further alienating other muslim soldiers in the army... and what benefit do we get? This is just like McCarthyism for the war on terror. Whenever we can blame a problem on radical Islam, we will do it. It may be a tenuous link, but it at least allows us to pin the blame on our enemy, rather than on ourselves.

So, if this guy was Hindu, Christian, Jewish, or any other mainstream religion, do you think this would have ended the same way? That is, he shoots dozens of strangers while yelling "god is great"?

 

[devilpup]

Terrorist Attack, def: a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims .

Fox news is hard set in calling it an islamic terrorist attack. What are your opinions on this view?

 

[tulane06]

Terrorist Attack, def: a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims .

Fox news is hard set in calling it an islamic terrorist attack. What are your opinions on this view?

The only part of the definition that doesn't fit ist the fact that he didn't use violence against civilians. Although I can't say so with 100% certainty, I would argue that his aims were political/religious. And the fact that soldiers he killed were unarmed and not on the battlefield does make them seem somewhat closer to civilians. I suppose jihadist would be a more accurate term than terrorist.

 

[orbitsurgMD]

The only part of the definition that doesn't fit ist the fact that he didn't use violence against civilians. Although I can't say so with 100% certainty, I would argue that his aims were political/religious. And the fact that soldiers he killed were unarmed and not on the battlefield does make them seem somewhat closer to civilians. I suppose jihadist would be a more accurate term than terrorist.

The relevance of "terrorism" to the criminal case seems to turn on elements of conspiracy, not just violence, as the determinant whether the alleged shooter should be prosecuted before a courts martial versus a federal civilian criminal trial for violation of federal anti-terror statutes. So far, the prosecution favors the former as a straight out murder case. Self-radicalization without conspiracy doesn't seem to qualify enough as a terrorism case.

I don't have any doubts this was a jihadist and islamically-inspired act. And none of that disqualifies him as a disgruntled office-shooter. If he just didn't want to fight, he could have petitioned for CO status, which it appears he didn't really do and he didn't go UA either. He went to work with a gun.

The defense will have to try the insanity card; it is really their only hope to avoid a death sentence. Good luck with that. Is he going to call his animating notion of the war against terror being a war against Muslims a paranoid delusion? Doubtful; it is a widely-shared point of view among radicalized Muslims.

 

[dru2002]

The relevance of "terrorism" to the criminal case seems to turn on elements of conspiracy, not just violence, as the determinant whether the alleged shooter should be prosecuted before a courts martial versus a federal civilian criminal trial for violation of federal anti-terror statutes. So far, the prosecution favors the former as a straight out murder case. Self-radicalization without conspiracy doesn't seem to qualify enough as a terrorism case.

I don't have any doubts this was a jihadist and islamically-inspired act. And none of that disqualifies him as a disgruntled office-shooter. If he just didn't want to fight, he could have petitioned for CO status, which it appears he didn't really do and he didn't go UA either. He went to work with a gun.

The defense will have to try the insanity card; it is really their only hope to avoid a death sentence. Good luck with that. Is he going to call his animating notion of the war against terror being a war against Muslims a paranoid delusion? Doubtful; it is a widely-shared point of view among radicalized Muslims.

The NY Times had an article outlining how this case will likely be defended.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/us/16defend.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=us

The main goal will be to avoid the death penalty.

The only practical way J. P. Galligan will be able to save Hasan’s life is to convince one military member — one — that Hasan should not die,” said James D. Culp, a lawyer who has defended many soldiers.
That might not be as difficult as it sounds, even with soldiers passing judgment, said Mr. Dunn, the former Army defense lawyer.
“One thing about a military jury is, they know people who have been wronged by the military,” he said. “If you’ve got any kind of case that’s credible, it’s that very kind of jury that would consider it.”
Still, soldiers who kill other soldiers come under harsh scrutiny, Mr. Fidell said. “Taking out people on your own side is really, really a bad situation to be in,” he said.

They also seem to think that some blame will be pointed at the government by the defense.

The defense is also likely to ask whether the military should have done more to prevent the shootings.
“I would be trying to show the military had more than fair warning that this guy was unstable,” Mr. Dunn said

I love the defense of I shouldn't be sentenced to death because you should have seen this coming. Whiskey, tango, foxtrot.

 

[ftrflyr29]

Here's an interesting document from CNN about Hasan.

and the link:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/18/fort.hood.hasan.memo/index.html

 

[IgD]

Here's an interesting document from CNN about Hasan.

and the link:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/18/fort.hood.hasan.memo/index.html

Very good find. I was kind of surprised by the conclusion. The stuff listed at the top part is very concerning. If the faculty have serious concerns about a resident and he has a track record like what is described I think you have to let him go. What do you guys think?

Addendum: I watched the video. They quoted a civilian psychiatrist as saying that Hasan would never have even gotten a callback for a job interview with a letter like that!

 

[ftrflyr29]

Very good find. I was kind of surprised by the conclusion. The stuff listed at the top part is very concerning. If the faculty have serious concerns about a resident and he has a track record like what is described I think you have to let him go. What do you guys think?

Addendum: I watched the video. They quoted a civilian psychiatrist as saying that Hasan would never have even gotten a callback for a job interview with a letter like that!

Thanks.......I have been reading this forum and not commenting much on this particular issue, but it makes my blood boil.

I am going to throw out a big turd, but from what I have seen in the military, I am not surprised at all this guy was kept around. I'll caveat this by saying I am not in the medical corps, so can not speak in an educated manner on that, but I am an active duty O and have been for 12+ yrs. I have seen the military keep people around who are AWFUL leaders and also promote some to leadership positions who should have never made it past O-3, all because the number one issue is diversity.

Please don't get me wrong, I am all for letting anyone regardless of race, gender or religion in the military. I myself fall into the diversity category, but I cannot stand this pattern of keeping people who are not up to par based on the fact that they make percentages look better.

In my last command, the CO was so bad there were 3 IG complaints filed against him, but they all were swept under the rug. When department heads would call to higher ups they knew in DC, trying to figure out what avenue to take, they were told to leave it alone. The bigwigs admitted even though his behavior was out of control, nothing could be done. He was protected. Just steer clear and he would be gone soon enough. Best part, he received copies of all the IG complaints and would reference them making assumptions about who filed them.

If you google US Army and diversity or US Navy and diversity you will see how important the issue is. Memos have been sent down from the CNO saying diversity is of number one importance. I have been asked to answer questions on how to keep my kind in the military. Because of these initiatives, as has been said before, no one will stand up and say "this guy can't hack it," because that would highlight them and potentially be career suicide.

This is my opinion only, so please take it as such.

 

[IgD]

Thanks.......I have been reading this forum and not commenting much on this particular issue, but it makes my blood boil...

I was a Navy psychiatrist and this particular issue is under my skin too. I don't really see it as a diversity issue. My experience was if you came to work and did your job people would leave you alone and respect you regardless of your quirks. I'm focused more on what I see as leadership issues. How on earth did Hasan get accepted into a fellowship program straight out of residency with a letter like that? Maybe you could argue that there wasn't enough there to release him from training but how about putting him in an operational environment and sending him on a deployment? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

 

[ftrflyr29]

I was a Navy psychiatrist and this particular issue is under my skin too. I don't really see it as a diversity issue. My experience was if you came to work and did your job people would leave you alone and respect you regardless of your quirks. I'm focused more on what I see as leadership issues. How on earth did Hasan get accepted into a fellowship program straight out of residency with a letter like that? Maybe you could argue that there wasn't enough there to release him from training but how about putting him in an operational environment and sending him on a deployment? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I completely agree wrt the failure of leadership. Again, I cannot speak about the MC and there is probably some truth to your statement of "there wasn't enough there....." I have seen that be an issue--if you don't get busted doing drugs or sleeping with someone you're not supposed to, it's hard to get rid of you. I am going to PM you, because I have a question that doesn't need to clog up the forum.

 

[orbitsurgMD]

I was a Navy psychiatrist and this particular issue is under my skin too. I don't really see it as a diversity issue. My experience was if you came to work and did your job people would leave you alone and respect you regardless of your quirks. I'm focused more on what I see as leadership issues. How on earth did Hasan get accepted into a fellowship program straight out of residency with a letter like that? Maybe you could argue that there wasn't enough there to release him from training but how about putting him in an operational environment and sending him on a deployment? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

He was a problem child and was not the kind of graduate a program director would send anywhere with confidence. Sorry to say, but that is the military medical way, weak actors get sent to places where they can be supervised and where they are unlikely to hurt anyone. That leaves the difficult, isolated and crappy places for those who are better performers.

Tell me, how desirable is this fellowship relative to say, child and adolescent, or forensics or consultation liaison or ECT? Correct me if I am mistaken, but this fellowship seems like a somewhat military-specific program, grafted onto a USUHS MPH program that is probably also taken by preventative med, occupational med and other non-psychiatric physicians.

As concerns Dr. Hasan, possibly his superiors thought that by keeping a problem performer close by, maybe hoping he would turn around and do better and keeping him out of places where there might be problems if this "doctor" decided to tell a suicidal person that "Islam" would save his soul or some other inappropriate advice.

And lets not fool ourselves, weak players who fulfill some "diversity" criteria can get opportunities that less "fulfilling" but stronger applicants might otherwise be better qualified to get.

 

[Galo]

Thanks.......I have been reading this forum and not commenting much on this particular issue, but it makes my blood boil.

I am going to throw out a big turd, but from what I have seen in the military, I am not surprised at all this guy was kept around. I'll caveat this by saying I am not in the medical corps, so can not speak in an educated manner on that, but I am an active duty O and have been for 12+ yrs. I have seen the military keep people around who are AWFUL leaders and also promote some to leadership positions who should have never made it past O-3, all because the number one issue is diversity.

Please don't get me wrong, I am all for letting anyone regardless of race, gender or religion in the military. I myself fall into the diversity category, but I cannot stand this pattern of keeping people who are not up to par based on the fact that they make percentages look better.

In my last command, the CO was so bad there were 3 IG complaints filed against him, but they all were swept under the rug. When department heads would call to higher ups they knew in DC, trying to figure out what avenue to take, they were told to leave it alone. The bigwigs admitted even though his behavior was out of control, nothing could be done. He was protected. Just steer clear and he would be gone soon enough. Best part, he received copies of all the IG complaints and would reference them making assumptions about who filed them.

If you google US Army and diversity or US Navy and diversity you will see how important the issue is. Memos have been sent down from the CNO saying diversity is of number one importance. I have been asked to answer questions on how to keep my kind in the military. Because of these initiatives, as has been said before, no one will stand up and say "this guy can't hack it," because that would highlight them and potentially be career suicide.

This is my opinion only, so please take it as such.

Thank you for your post and insight. I have bad news for you. The experience of allowing inferior leaders to ascend in power, (rank), is probably more prevalent in military medicine than anywhere else, (my opinion and experience in the AF). While having a ***** who runs the supply command is undesirable and bad for the mission, its much worse to have a ***** run the surgical squadron, or worse yet the entire hospital. Even worse is that ***** often has support from leadership that fully well knows the situation, but is unwilling to do anything about it, diversity present or not.

This fundamental failure of leadership has always been one of my worst gripes with the system I experienced, one of my most vocal complaints, and one of the biggest reasons military medicine is what it is today. The prevalence of your "Frank Burns" medical officers is truly scary, and it says something that it was being made fun of so long ago.

It will be interesting to watch how the defence plays this out. As an act of treason during war is this not punishable by death? firing squad??

 

[IgD]

Tell me, how desirable is this fellowship relative to say, child and adolescent, or forensics or consultation liaison or ECT? Correct me if I am mistaken, but this fellowship seems like a somewhat military-specific program, grafted onto a USUHS MPH program that is probably also taken by preventative med, occupational med and other non-psychiatric physicians.

The fellowship was called "disaster psych". I don't think you can become board certified in it and it probably doesn't have any clinical value. It's a combined research, public policy, MPH program were the psychiatrists works with the "worlds experts" in military psychiatry. I thought it was a psych only program. We saw some of what his residency director thought of him, I wonder what his fellowship director thought! I suspect a certain Marine I worked with would have described the fellowship as part of a self-licking ice cream cone.

 

[ftrflyr29]

Thank you for your post and insight. I have bad news for you. The experience of allowing inferior leaders to ascend in power, (rank), is probably more prevalent in military medicine than anywhere else, (my opinion and experience in the AF). While having a ***** who runs the supply command is undesirable and bad for the mission, its much worse to have a ***** run the surgical squadron, or worse yet the entire hospital. Even worse is that ***** often has support from leadership that fully well knows the situation, but is unwilling to do anything about it, diversity present or not.

This fundamental failure of leadership has always been one of my worst gripes with the system I experienced, one of my most vocal complaints, and one of the biggest reasons military medicine is what it is today. The prevalence of your "Frank Burns" medical officers is truly scary, and it says something that it was being made fun of so long ago.

It will be interesting to watch how the defence plays this out. As an act of treason during war is this not punishable by death? firing squad??

I just find it all very sad, really. In my community, for many years, we blamed it on Tailhook '91 fallout, but it is now self-perpetuating. Many good young O's can't stand what they see and get out leaving the poo to rise to the top--nothing you all haven't said numerous times before. There are good ones that make it, and that is refreshing, but the number of bad ones is just depressing.

I think the firing squad would be great and I can't wait to see how this ends, but am not super hopeful. It will all just probably come out of my taxes to house him, provide medical care for him, and make special arrangements so he can continue to practice his religion. thumbdown

 

[a1qwerty55]

I was a Navy psychiatrist and this particular issue is under my skin too. I don't really see it as a diversity issue. My experience was if you came to work and did your job people would leave you alone and respect you regardless of your quirks. I'm focused more on what I see as leadership issues. How on earth did Hasan get accepted into a fellowship program straight out of residency with a letter like that? Maybe you could argue that there wasn't enough there to release him from training but how about putting him in an operational environment and sending him on a deployment? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I would guess he got the fellowship b/c no one else applied and the military wasn't going to let the slot go empty.

As far as quirks, if we canned every weirdo we wouldn't have many psychiatrists or neurosurgeons. When it comes to diversity - I have never ever seen a minority resident who was seperated who did not play the race card. It is very very painful to fire a minority - had Hasan been white he might have been canned.