TexasCHLforum.com

Guys,
This really really really irritates me. (I wish I could type what I really feel.)
http://www.abcnews.go.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Two reasons: (1) remember what flows down hill? (2) We have to cover our
you-know-what; (3) we were being politically correct, but now we have to
cover our you-know-what. (4) Somebody has to catch the blame.

If I am not correct, and you wish to explain to me why I am wrong, please
feel free. I will not argue. I have been wrong before.
Hoot

I have to disagree. Having spent 22 years in the military, I saw officers covering for fellow officers far too many times.

In fact, I commented on that very subject (to my family) right after the shooting. This is one case where their covering for each other jumped up & bit them.

I have no doubt this is greatly deserved by those who let the shooter slide by until people died.

Not to go deep to into this case, but the shooter has also mental and psychological issue (depressed and disturbed and on the brink of being a life failure) and wanted some revenge for stress work/life related issues. Trying to act in henious fashion so he will be regarded a radical hero by the extremists is only a self-image polishing tactics. I can see a distinct similarity of this case and that of the Tuscon shooter.

Thank you Pawpaw. thank you Beiruty. both of you have reasonable and compelling arguments.
Hoot

hoot wrote:Thank you Pawpaw. thank you Beiruty. both of you have reasonable and compelling arguments.
Hoot

I wonder if any of their inaction was due to diversity training and "political correctness".

The review, however, found that no one in Hasan's chain of command blocked his ability to hold a secret security clearance or stop his continued assignments, including his move to Fort Hood.

No one blocked it, but did any one report it or suggest that his clearance should be revoked? Or stop his assignments?

I'm with Pawpaw. Too many times officers will take care of each other, often to the detriment of the enlisted folks who have to work for a failing officer. In this case their refusal to write a bad OER had a really bad outcome.

tallmike wrote:I'm with Pawpaw. Too many times officers will take care of each other, often to the detriment of the enlisted folks who have to work for a failing officer. In this case their refusal to write a bad OER had a really bad outcome.

This also happens in the civilian world. Of course, usually no one gets killed.

tallmike wrote:I'm with Pawpaw. Too many times officers will take care of each other, often to the detriment of the enlisted folks who have to work for a failing officer. In this case their refusal to write a bad OER had a really bad outcome.

And enlisted men and NCOs don't?

Of course enlisted and NCOs will do it too, but in my experience not to the same level.

I think in this guys case (from the few details about his history I have been able to read) it was done to the extreme. Those officers who enabled this guy, despite his HUGE and glaring warning signs (he was not subtle or shy about his extremist views) should be taken to task for it.

tallmike wrote:Of course enlisted and NCOs will do it too, but in my experience not to the same level.

I think in this guys case (from the few details about his history I have been able to read) it was done to the extreme. Those officers who enabled this guy, despite his HUGE and glaring warning signs (he was not subtle or shy about his extremist views) should be taken to task for it.

I can't say my view is the same as yours, having served as enlisted, NCO, and officer. But that aside, there are certainly those to blame for this tragic event that need to held accountable.

Guys,
This really really really irritates me.

Yup.

I think in this guys case (from the few details about his history I have been able to read) it was done to the extreme. Those officers who enabled this guy, despite his HUGE and glaring warning signs (he was not subtle or shy about his extremist views) should be taken to task for it.

Again, yup. TOTAL failure. From the details released about this guy, he should have NEVER made it to Ft. Hood.

Now I know what is bothering me, and I think I can express it.
Officers #1 thru #9 were told by their superiors that it might be
politically incorrect to voice their concerns. But now, officers
#1 thru #9 are disciplined, while their superior remains above
the storm.

<begin opinion> If we ignore the real problem, it will not go away. <end opinion>
Hoot

In what universe was it a good idea to have him counseling men coming home from a war where they are fighting Muslims? This guy gave glaring evidence he was going off the rails and it was ignored and suppressed. Add to that our soldiers are not allowed to carry sidearms and this sort of thing was an obvious choice for him. Heck, our soldiers are in as much danger today from this kind of attack as they were then. They are still not allowed to have sidearms on them. We trust them to defend our country, but not to defend themselves while on our military bases.

Not to offend those who have proudly served in the Army, whom I greatly respect, this case may point out a significant difference between its traditions and those of the naval services. In the latter the captain goes down with the ship. The commanding officer is held responsible for everything which happens on his ship, regardless of his personal involvement, and it flows uphill, not often downhill. The commanding officer, while not necessarily having committed an offense under the Code, is more often than not held responsible for not exercising appropriate leadership.

I have read that the most senior officer reprimanded in this case was a major. In the naval services one would expect to see the unit commander, regardless of rank, to "go down with his ship." I am not suggesting that the base commander had any personal shortfall here, but that often wouldn't matter in a naval service.

Elmo

TexasGal wrote:In what universe was it a good idea to have him counseling men coming home from a war where they are fighting Muslims? This guy gave glaring evidence he was going off the rails and it was ignored and suppressed. Add to that our soldiers are not allowed to carry sidearms and this sort of thing was an obvious choice for him. Heck, our soldiers are in as much danger today from this kind of attack as they were then. They are still not allowed to have sidearms on them. We trust them to defend our country, but not to defend themselves while on our military bases.

That lady's and gentlemen about sums it up. Plain, simple .