12 dead, 31 injured in shooting at Fort Hood Texas

Asked the DH about this. Based on his own experiences in a war zone, he says that even though most personnel are armed, no one is permitted to carry weapons in a medical facility---a setting similar to the soldier readiness center where the shootings took place. I realize that this situation might prompt some people to think that all our soldiers should be armed at all times. Yet, that could cause more harm than good. In this instance, if there were soldiers who were armed and fighting back, the MPs could not have known who was the original shooter and who was shooting in self-defense. While arming every soldier might have stopped Hasan, it might have resulted in more casualties in that the MPs might have started shooting everyone who was also firing a weapon. Moreover, had others been armed and started shooting, how would the MPs have been able to determine who did this and what his motive was?

Additionally, regarding possession of private and military weapons on a stateside base, the DH had this to add. On a military base stateside, people can drive onto the base in their own private vehicles. It is illegal to have a military weapon in a private vehicle. (Depending on the state of alert on a particular base, private cars can be inspected when driving onto base.) Soldiers can be permitted to carry private weapons onto military bases (again, dependent on individual base policies) but if they're housed in barracks, they are required to keep their private weapons in a unit arms room. The thing is, Hasan was not permitted to carry any weapon into the soldier readiness center. In the military, there are rules. Officers and enlisted men and women alike know the rules and are expected to follow those rules to the letter, lest they disrupt the cohesiveness of the unit and erode military discipline. As an officer, Hasan was trusted to obey those rules. He was aware of the rules. He clearly had deep problems that should have been caught earlier that made him unfit to be in his capacity as a soldier and a physician.

My husband has worked with many people who were afraid to deploy. It is DH's experience that most soldiers who have severe stress reactions threaten self-harm (often suicide) rather than threats directed toward others. As a chaplain, he works individually with soldiers and either counsels them himself (yes, he has had extensive training) or he refers them to the VA system. Part of the purpose of soldier readiness centers is to do exactly the type of screening that Hasan obviously needed.

The thing is, obviously Hasan had issues that made him unfit for combat duty. As a psychiatrist, he may have felt very isolated and unable to confide in other physicians or mental health personnel. He may or may not have had access to a Muslim military chaplain and may have felt uncomfortable with Catholic, Protestant or Jewish chaplains. He MAY have had a superior officer tell him to suck it up and not be afraid. I find it disturbing that he had similar problems during medical school and residency. In spite of his problems, he was still promoted and still deemed suitable for deployment. Were red flags regarding his behavior ignored because, as a psychiatrist, he was desperately needed in a war zone?

I believe the best way to have avoided this tragedy was to have someone screen Hasan more carefully. Neither my husband or I believe that arming every person on the base would have prevented the tragedy or decreased the number of casualties. I sincerely hope Hasan does survive long enough to explain his motives and deal with the legal consequences of his behavior so that such a tragedy never happens again.

I want to know why too . . .but it is sounding more like people are looking for ways to blame the war or American soldiers for this . . rather than the guy who did this.

What a shame that Americans are outraged about a soldier who goes on a killing spree in this country but cheer on soldiers who kill in Afghanistan because they are “defending our freedoms” and “keeping us safe from terrorists.” The truth, of course, is that the global war on terror is destroying our freedoms and creating terrorists.

If only he had been allowed to change his job, as in any normal human endeavor, the supposed shooter at Ft. Hood might have left in peace. Only the military claims the right to kill you or jail you for wanting to change your job, so the man was held against his will. This does not, needless to say, justify shooting others, here or overseas. He should simply have left the army. As should all soldiers destined for immoral and illegal wars.

The guy climbs ona table and screams Allah Akbar before starting shooting. That is the definition of a muslim terrorist to me. he was not killing becasue of PTSD or he was upset. He was killing on behalf of his god. the press nor governmnet is not making a big deal of this because to do so would admit thier own failures and might just offend the poor muslims. Imagine though for a moment if the shootre stood ap and screamed some christian praise to god. the press would be all over this as a right wing nut job and how bad the christian are.

The guy climbs ona table and screams Allah Akbar before starting shooting. That is the definition of a muslim terrorist to me. he was not killing becasue of PTSD or he was upset. He was killing on behalf of his god. the press nor governmnet is not making a big deal of this because to do so would admit thier own failures and might just offend the poor muslims. Imagine though for a moment if the shootre stood ap and screamed some christian praise to god. the press would be all over this as a right wing nut job and how bad the christian are.