Fort Hood, post the first.

I wasn't ignoring the story last night, our internet connection was slower than John Kerry in Cambodia, and I gave up trying to get email to open and realized that the news coverage was just ad hoc crap.

It has been interesting (and instructive) to watch the story morph, and how people felt the need to jump on it with all sorts of bullshit analysis when pretty much all they were doing was... guessing. I'm talking the stuff that went out publicly, not conversations that were occurring in email, or around the water coolers and in chat rooms. That's how you figure things out, and gather information - which is different from publicly posting/broadcasting drivel. Twitter counts as that kind of conversation, as well, by my lights.

I'm thinking, in a way, assuming this morning's version of things holds up as the story fills out, that we got about the best of the possible outcomes.

Not a combat vet - ergo, harder for those who are prone to do so to beat the "Veterans Are Dangerous and Should Be Monitored and Controlled!" drum.

Probably - though not with certitude at this point - a lone wolf practitioner of the religion of peace, rather than a member of an organized cell.  The jury is still out on that one, as of this writing.

Of course, the downside to this is that people will be suggesting all sorts of blanket and systemic responses to what is a (hopefully) singular event, with blanket responses that will be able to be applied (when the Usual Suspects* wish to) other people/organizations/artifacts.

Another prediction: As the results of thousands of people combing through everything about this with the benefit of the map provided by hindsight, much will be the moaning and pissing about "How could they have ever let this guy get so far? It was sooo obvious! Why didn't they do anything? They're so stooooopid!"

I detest that type of smug, glib, self-serving analysis.

When the data presents itself in bits and pieces, fits and starts, over years and in many different environments - nothing is that obvious to the participants, passerby, etc. Connections that seem blindingly obvious in hindsight aren't anywhere nearly that clear in realtime. Especially when you are functioning in a system that tries to presume innocence, and is in fact set up to try to prevent arbitrary exercise of power on the basis of suspicion alone, and in a social environment that prefers (and, in the case of PC, demands) that you err on the side of caution.

What I'm getting at here is - be careful what you wish for. Unintended consequences abound - ones that could redound to places near and dear to all of us.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't respond - just that we should do so deliberately, not in anger, fear, and haste.

Absent some stunning twist, it's clear Major Hasan betrayed his oath. There's a reason that the oath includes the terms "without mental reservation or purpose of evasion." He can't claim a religious exemption. I'm sure he's going to try - but that, frankly, shouldn't prevent us from strapping him to a gurney and putting him down like a dog, if that's what a courts-martial directs.

Be interesting to see if the current CinC would affirm such a sentence. Of course, hopefully he won't be in office long enough for the issue to reach his desk.

*Usual Suspects = Anyone in power.