Thursday, November 12, 2009

Let's just call it 'hitting the annual re-set button'. (UPDATED)

(please scroll to bottom for update)

Apparently, Nadal Hasan had issues going overseas by order and direction of his country to fight his fellow Muslims. And let’s put aside for a moment, the incredibly shallow and wrong-headed statement made by Army Chief of Staff, General Casey on how terrible it would be if diversity in the Army were to become a casualty as a result of the Ft. Hood massacre and focus on the larger picture of eliminating any Islamo-jihadist elements in our armed forces without resorting to purge tactics.

I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.

That is the oath taken by every commissioned officer in our armed forces. (The enlisted members' is similar and includes a clause regarding following orders given by the chain of command all the way up to the Commander-in-Chief)

The oaths should be retaken every single year by every member of our armed forces in a small ceremony in the presence of that member’s peers. This verbal oath-taking should be followed by signing one’s name on the dotted line beneath the oath.

We have an all-volunteer armed forces and we want to keep it that way. But if a member of our armed forces has developed a conscious that no longer can support the letter and intent of that oath, then he/she should be discharged.

Yes, we may be entirely naïve, but we believe an annual re-taking of the oath in the company of peers followed by a signature forces a self-evaluation of priorities, loyalties and commitments on a continual basis.

B-Daddy has more on the oath and just exactly what it is we have fought for in the past and what we continue to fight for in the present, here.

P.S. Regarding our proposal, we would love to here what you think, especially from those who have served or are currently serving.

(UPDATE #1):

We contemplated going with a separate post because it doesn't have anything to do with oaths but decided to add it here as it has everything to do with our nation's committment to preventing this from happening again.

The Ft. Hood massacre is merely the latest installment of a pattern of murderous violence we have seen perpetrated by Muslim males against non-Muslims in this country since 9-11.

From Victor Davis Hanson’s article in the National Review which chronicles the laundry list of transgressors:

Every few months either an Islamic-inspired terrorist plot will be foiled, or a young Muslim male will shoot, run down, or stab someone while invoking anger at non-Muslims.

In other words, the attack on Fort Hood happened on schedule. It was the rule, not the exception. And something like it will occur again — soon.

Given what we already know about Hasan and the details that continue to emerge that point to the near-inescapable conclusion that he was a jihadist (He had us at “Allahu Akbar!”) and given the fact so many dots representing Hasan’s deeds and words were not connected, has the mindset of our security apparatus, ostensibly in place to protect us from people like Hasan, devolved to the point that the 13 dead and 30 wounded at Ft. Hood represents an “acceptable level of casualties”?

It certainly appears that our current operating philosophy is that another Ft. Hood every now and then will be tolerable in lieu of offending the sensibilities of any victim group.

We really hope we are off-base but the evidence with respect to Hasan, at least, is not encouraging.

1 comment:

Harrison said...

Why did we never hear about Christians in WWI or WWII going to Germany to kill fellow Christians?