In Light of Ft. Hood Shootings (Nidal Hasan): Growing Religious Influence in the Military & PTSD

Excerpt:
Instead of pointing fingers at the imaginary Muslim fifth column, it is more relevant to discuss what would push a man to commit a treacherous act, not to justify it, but rather to prevent another serviceman from committing a similar act, perhaps a Jew or an atheist or other non-Christian, someone similarly frustrated and harassed, as Nidal allegedly was.

Please read this important note on this post

Strict moderation will be applied to all comments. Any comments relating to the topics of (1) permissibility of Muslims working for the military or (2) whether this murderous spree should not be condemned and, (3) of course, any celebratory comments (an unfortunate reflection upon some in our Ummah) will be deleted. Please stick to the topic: Growing religious influence in the military or PTSD or any other cause/effect thoughts.

Even if your comments are respectful, I will apply strict control; please accept my apologies in advance.

———————

In light of the recent tragic events at Ft. Hood, where a military officer, Nidal Hasan, shot thirteen of his fellow servicemen dead, we have seen the Islamophobia thermometer rise once again with the news media exploring every angle of Nidal's Muslim background.  While some (not enough) attention is being paid to Nidal's career, ironically a psychiatrist himself who was assigned to a position to help others with psychiatric problems, not enough is being paid to the important question of “what about the army's religious background”?

This post aims to discuss these two issues, the effect of PTSD (posttruamatic stress disorder) upon those whose job is to treat it, and the increasingly religious character of the US military that is leading to hostility towards non-Christians. Of course, the goal of the post is not to justify the actions of Nidal. I write, just as others are writing about why a psychiatrist would suddenly go postal on his comrades. As a Muslim though, I have to increasingly be careful of how my words are perceived in this day and age, as unfortunate this might be. So, before I discuss the topic, I would like to prelude it with an important message to clarify and delineate between justification and root-cause analysis.

One of the unfortunate machinations of the Islamophobes post-9/11 was to stifle any discussion of the root-causes of the tragedy. These Islamophobes (a combination of right-wingers and pro-Israel hawks) found the uptick in discussion of the Israel-Palestine conflict and its contribution to global terrorism (including 9/11) as a disturbing trend that had to be stopped. The point was “don't blame the Israel occupation” and the way that this plot worked is that if you brought up Israel, you would be accused of justifying 9/11. Of course, the logic behind this is flawed. As an example, suppose there was a severe increase in the number of pedaphiles from a certain community. Just examining the sociological reasons towards this increase would not be a justification for the pedaphile's actions, rather this would be a critical exercise in order to stop and reverse this disturbing trend. Similarly, understanding the root-causes of global terrorism is an important exercise, designed not to justify terrorists, but to prevent their next big bumper crop.

Growing Religious Influence in the Military

Nidal's cousin had something to say about it, which needs to be paid particular attention to:

Perhaps it was the combination of being a Muslim and an Army counselor that set Hasan off. His cousin Nader Hasan said Maj. Hasan had his own stresses to deal with, as a Muslim army officer.

“It was the harassment that, I think, was what got to him … him being referenced for his Middle Eastern ethnicity, even though he was born and raised here,” Nader Hasan said.

NPR confirmed this with other members of Nidal's family:

In interviews, members of his family have suggested that the modern military had become an especially uncomfortable place for Muslims and Arab-Americans like Hasan. It was then, they say, that the newly minted doctor first began complaining of harassment over his Muslim religion and talking about a way out.

Why the harassment, possibly so severe, that it would lead a man to go against everything he stood for?

The easy answer would be to simply point out that this is to be expected after 9/11. But the men in the military represent a sample of the general American population, and in general Muslims are not harassed in their daily life, with exceptions of course. While Islamophobia is real, there is not another example of an average American Muslims going into a rampage like Nidal did.

In the words of another Muslim in the military, Ahmed Shama, mentioned [NPR]:

“During boot camp I was referred to by the phrase 'al-Qaida terrorist' by one of my drill instructors,”

Now, imagine this for a minute. Imagine if you work for any organization, and that you are repeatedly accused of being a spy or an agent of your competitor. How would that affect your psyche? How would you feel about coming to work everyday? Now imagine if you are put in a HR position in this organization, designed to address the issue of discrimination for others. Could you imagine the cognitive dissonance in play? Could you imagine the conflicting messages in your head?

“There are no words to express my feeling upon hearing my religion referred to as Satan,” says Shama, who is currently studying Arabic in Cairo. “Even worse was watching footage of mosques being blown up by U.S. forces and hearing reports of the Quran being shredded.”

Why is the military then any different? Is it more suspect to harassment and Islamophobia than the general public?

The deeper answer may lie in the growing influence of fundamentalist, evangelical form of Christianity in the military, and the likely increasing peer pressure on non-Christians to “assimilate” or face implicit or explicit harassment.

The book, With God On Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military, examines some of these evangelical trends, and how the American army is more and more becoming the Christian army, on a mission from God.  In an excerpt posted on alternet,  Birth of the Christian Soldier: How Evangelicals Infiltrated the American Military, the authors point out,

It took decades for evangelicals to infiltrate the military, but eventually fundamentalist theology adapted as its entry points the culture of authority, duty, and sacrifice in the armed forces.

Instead of pointing fingers at the imaginary Muslim fifth column, it is more relevant to discuss what would push a man to commit a treacherous act, not to justify it, but rather to prevent another serviceman from committing a similar act, perhaps a Jew or an atheist or other non-Christian, someone similarly frustrated and harassed, as Nidal allegedly was.

Watch the excellent documentary that sheds more light on “Fault Lines-Religion in the Military” pasted below the post.

PTSD

The irony of Nidal's profession as a psychiatrist has not been lost on most. However, the media continues to make only passing remarks as to how the profession itself could have been a catalyst for Nidal's own mental breakdown. Rest assured, if Nidal was not a Muslim, this aspect of the shootings would be front and center, and by unfortunately focusing on the Muslim issue, it is possible that perhaps the main underlying issue in this may be lost.

Fortunately, I was able to find some relevant materials on the outskirts of the MSM.

NPR mentions it in passing only:

Psychologists say there is such a thing as “vicarious traumatization,” in which someone can be affected just by hearing what someone else has gone through.

Michigan's Newschannel 3 asked the doctors how they cope and what their training is. “We learn to separate our own emotional stuff from what the patient presents to us,” said Dr. Bloem. Another doctor, Dr. Lieggio, stated, what needs to be paid particular attention to:

If you immerse yourself, then you get blurred too.

Could Nidal have not been able to separate his own emotions from his patients?

In an excellent article, Kevin Camp writes about “Re-evaluating war and its lasting effects“, and immediately hits it dead-center:

The media framing implies, but can't bring itself to mention directly, whether the psychological cost of warfare might be a deeply destructive force that erodes the emotional health of those who serve.

While holding back ultimate judgement, Kevin aptly addresses the issue and brings up important questions:

Like everyone else, I concede that at this early stage in the investigation substantial details are few and far between. As a result, I am not going to idly speculate as to the motives or plan of action of Nidal Malik Hasan. One does, however, have to concede the irony that a psychiatrist, one who treats mental illness as a vocation, might have been ill himself with the very disease he sought to treat. Whether Hasan serves as the miner's canary for us all or is simply another severely troubled individual with a gun in the grips of a debilitating disorder may never firmly be established. Still, that there might be some doubt between these two perspectives is damning critique enough. I have always found the disconnect between embracing violence and hardhearted cruelty towards one set of humans while behaving with mannerly restraint to another nonsensical at best. Though we might have the ability with enough societal conditioning to thread that needle, I question whether it is a healthy perspective for anyone to take on and in so doing, justify.

And ultimately ends with another telling observation

Treating the causes in this regard would rattle too many cages, threaten the livelihoods of too many wealthy people, necessitate a shift in major industries that drive our economy, require a completely different cultural outlook, and above all force us to be self-reflective and introspective, two qualities few people wish to take on for any extended length of time. Yet, for those seeking answers, here is one. Until we ask hard questions like these of ourselves and the world around us, one interrogative which we ought not need to ask is “Why?”.

And in the final article on TRUE/SLANT, Todd Essig, a psychologist and psychoanalyst with a full-time therapy practice for 20 years, states it quite bluntly:

But when I learned that the likely shooter was an Army psychiatrist who treats PTSD, himself on the cusp of deployment, I thought, “I’m not surprised.”

One fact we do know is that treating PTSD is itself traumatic. Before you judge or maybe make a joke about some shrink wigging out–or indulge ugly racist fantasies–I want you to imagine a work day spent bearing witness to traumas so horrific media outlets won’t even show the videos. Imagine every day trying to help young men and women somehow put their lives back together despite their night terrors, flashbacks, and chronic sleeplessness. While you reach out to help,  they mistrust your every move and respond with hair-trigger tempers, not to mention all the physical symptoms, alienation, and hopelessness. Surrounded by thoughts of suicide–and homicide–you try and keep faith with the honor and challenge of providing care.

But soon the line between their experience and yours starts to blur until, well, something like what happened at Fort Hood today becomes an all too real possibility.

The doctor then mentions a couple of other important references in this must-read article.

the problem of vicarious traumatization (VT), which they defined as the cumulative transformative effects upon therapists resulting from empathic engagement with traumatized clients.

The good doctor has since penciled in another article, “Talking about Hasan reveals ugly racism“, and I borrow his concluding paragraph in closing:

In the absence of evidence, the hateful character of some on the right has been revealed. What we need to keep in mind now, before the information is available, is that everything being said is based on the same evidence as is finding a clown in the clouds. Information will emerge. An explanation will get developed. Some of today’s fantasies will be proved correct. But today what is being said are really just fantasies that reveal the character of the speaker. Being correct about vicarious traumatization having a role in Hasan’s motivation will not make my politics any more correct, nor would an eventual revelation of terrorist motives make today’s racism any less racist.

Related Posts:

• The Tragedy of Nidal Hasan's Fort Hood Shootings: Media Discipline & Muslim Condemnations

See Also:

• Muslim Americans Must Obey U.S. Laws; Nidal Hasan Disobeyed Islamic Doctrine
• Open Letter to Al-Awlaki

————————