A week after a Muslim jihadi gunned down more than 40 fellow citizens at Ft. Hood, Texas, America’s national security leadership still won’t admit that the attack had anything to do with Islam. By failing to acknowledge that connection, those with a constitutional duty to defend this nation “against all enemies foreign and domestic” consistently substitute a policy of political correctness at the expense of military readiness. The fact is that the 5 November 2009 attack that took the lives of thirteen American patriots was not just an act of terrorism: it was an act of war. When a gunman from the ranks of Islamic Jihad mounts an armed assault against a military target in complete consistency with the enemy doctrine of war, it is time to recognize that the U.S. actually is at war — not just in Afghanistan or Iraq, but with all those who follow the call of Jihad. These are the Jihad Wars and the stakes are clear: shall Americans live in security under the Constitution or shall the enemy within and without compel us to submit to Shari’a (Islamic law)?
The few courageous commentators, like Colonel Ralph Peters, Bill O’Reilly, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who dare to notice that U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was born and raised a Muslim, yelled “Allahu Akbar (“God is the greatest”) while shooting people in the back, and sought Islamic fatwas from American-born Yemeni al-Qa’eda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki (who’d been his imam at the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia), have been ignored. Hasan told colleagues, "I’m a Muslim first and an American second." He proselytized his psychiatric patients, many with PTSD, trying to convert them to Islam — and they complained about it. He gave a Power Point presentation while at the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences entitled ‘Why the War on Terror is a War on Islam" in which a classmate says he “justified suicide bombing" and spewed "anti-American propaganda.”
The Army knew about all of this. Further, the 9/11 Commission, Congress, and the FBI had all focused on al-Awlaki’s links to al-Qa’eda eight year ago. DIA issued an internal report in 2003 warning that Muslim soldiers in the U.S. military pose a possible security threat after Sgt. Hasan Akbar, a Muslim convert, killed two and wounded 15 others at a military camp outside Baghdad.
But in the days since the Ft. Hood massacre, U.S. Army Chief of Staff General George Casey has appeared more worried about the possibility that diversity in the military could become “a casualty” than he has about his constitutional duty to ensure force protection within the ranks of this country’s military, unit cohesion, and readiness to defeat this nation’s enemies. The reality that Maj. Hasan and Sgt. Akbar should alert us to is that some of those enemies are already inside the gates. They do not wear an enemy uniform or fight within the bounds of the Geneva Convention code. They pose as loyal Americans but render their true allegiance to Islam and Shari’a.
We know from the Muslim Brotherhood’s own internal documents that the strategy of Islamic Jihad includes “destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands….” In other words, the strategy of our sworn enemies is designed to get us to wreck our own country with our own hands, from within our own society. Gen. Casey and all the rest of our national security leadership are responsible for knowing this, for knowing that our military has been penetrated by enemy soldiers such as Hasan, and for establishing a successful defense plan that identifies and excises them out of the Army before they do what Akbar and Hasan have done.
This is not to say that either Akbar or Hasan is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood; but, from their words and deeds, we do know that they hold the same ideological beliefs as the Brotherhood, al-Qa’eda, and all who seek the dual objectives of a new Caliphate and worldwide enforcement of Shari’a. Hasan may or may not be found to have direct links to recognized Islamic terror organizations. This needs to be investigated, but should not distract us from the increasing prevalence of the individual jihadi. Under Islamic law, in the absence of a Caliph, it is the duty of every Muslim to wage individual jihad (or fard ayn) against the enemy if any part of Muslim lands is occupied by non-Muslim soldiers. That jihad may be by the sword, the pen, or the purse — and in fact, is all of those. The ultimate objective is still the same: subjugation of the entire world to a supremacist Islamic ideology.
When President Obama expressed the sentiment at the Ft. Hood commemorative ceremony that “no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor," he showed that he either does not consider Islam a genuine faith (hardly likely) — or, he has no idea what is contained in the Qur’an, ahadith, and Sunna. But Hasan certainly does know that the Qur’an commands him and all Muslims: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and his apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they be of the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Q 9:29) Shouldn’t the commander in chief of the U.S. military know it too?
Given what the Army chain of command and other federal investigators surely do know and have known about Hasan, his expressed beliefs, and declared loyalties, there is no reason the murderous assault at Ft. Hood should have occurred. When the official blinders and earplugs are removed, jihadis like Hasan self-identify to any with the will to understand. His motives were expressed loudly and clearly many years ago, but just as declarations of war by al-Qa’eda and the Muslim Brotherhood, have been willfully ignored.
Unless an investigation such as called for by Lieberman, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, can jolt our national security leadership out of its suicidal reluctance to name the enemy and pursue him wherever he may be found, the brave members of the U.S. military will remain in mortal peril, not only on foreign battlefields, but right here at home on American soil. And if the U.S. Army cannot even defend its own — against its own — then how can it defend the rest of us?