Who Is the Commander in Chief?

So it’s official . . . kind of. Major Hasan is a zealot for “radical Islam,” and people knew it. Doesn’t give you too much faith in the system, does it?

In an earlier post about the Fort Hood incident, I suggested that the question is: How could this happen? Though I suspected it then, it’s obvious now that part of the answer is our faith in political correctness. Yes, PC is an abstract concept, not a person. So having faith in it sounds preposterous. So what I should say is that because of the insidious influence of PC, we have faith in people we never should trust. PC blinds us to the importance of knowing whom we trust.

I did not knowingly trust Maj. Hasan. But I surely did indirectly. More important, the people he gunned down trusted him. That trust has always seemed warranted and invulnerable to suspicion. Not any more.

It isn’t only Maj. Hasan who betrayed our trust. Others in the military knew of his goofiness (a euphemism, considering the consequences of their oversight and inaction). And yet he had freedom to roam the base, work with patients, and walk into a facility and shoot indiscriminately and fatally at innocent “infidels.”

How can we not wonder how compromised our military has become? Is Hasan the tip of an iceberg? How far up the chain of command does his ideology find a home?

It’s lunacy for Americans to prefer abstract and amorphous “change” over substance. This is partly because change is never really amorphous or abstract when it occurs. It’s always concrete, definite. Since it is so definite when it happens, we must be sure we know what sort of change we’re asking for when politicians promise it.

We didn’t know what change was in mind when Obama was a presidential candidate. He made sure of that. And the electorate didn’t care. But why did Obama make sure that no one knew his definite plans? And what are we to make of the radicalism of so many changes he’s already proposed in his first year as president? Do we yet know who this guy really is?

This was a question for the days of campaigning. But it’s pertinent again today. For Obama is our Commander in Chief, the highest ranking member of the American military infrastructure.

I suggest that if our confidence in the military infrastructure is to be restored, we must have unequivocal repudiation of radical Islamic ideology from the top down. It won’t be enough to hear this in the abstract. What is really needed is explicit condemnation of sharia law, followed up with vigorous efforts to track down, expose, and prosecute enemies in the camp.

What are the chances that’s going to happen?

Advertisements

About Doug Geivett
University Professor; PhD in philosophy; author; conference speaker. Hobbies include motorcycling, travel, kayaking, sailing.

5 Responses to Who Is the Commander in Chief?

  1. “We didn’t know what change was in mind when Obama was a presidential candidate. He made sure of that. And the electorate didn’t care. But why did Obama make sure that no one knew his definite plans? And what are we to make of the radicalism of so many changes he’s already proposed in his first year as president? Do we yet know who this guy really is?”

    I think there is a theory of governance that he works from that, if it were to be elucidated forthrightly, it would terrify the American public. The missteps being made in the first year of office, I think, are due to a kind of academic blindness; a fog of interconnected ideas that work well in the abstract, in the classroom setting, but do not translate to actual work-a-day experience. In the first few moments of my Poli Sci program, I have seen the self-imposed pressure of trying to drive the discipline in a more empirical, hard-science direction, and to avoid “speculations” with normative theory (in a word, philosophical investigation).

    A professor asked the question “does X’s theory seem to…mechanistic?” This surprised me because I had thought many theories did not take into careful consideration the force of human agency.

    -Adam

    P.S. I hope you are well Dr. Geivett.

    Like

  2. Howard says:

    In short, Yes!

    Like

  3. Doug Geivett says:

    Howard,

    Do you mean: ‘Why has there so far been only one response to this post, given the significance of the issue?’

    Like

  4. Howard says:

    Why only one response to COMMANDER IN CHIEF? It seems to me that just the name ISLAM or SUBJECTION would bring out some debate as radical Islam and peaceful Islam apparently have the same goal, one world under subjection to sharia law.
    Remember the cheering in the streets of islamic cities around the world as the towers come down in N.Y.C. 9-11-01?
    What is our President’s world view?

    Like

  5. Bill Gilbert says:

    I believe the American people made a serious mistake electing a person who is not a believer of the christian faith. Our nation was founded on christian principles. I believe our Heavenly Father is looking down at us with tears in his eyes. I also believe this country will not be blessed for long unless we change our ways. Wake up American people!! Thank you and God bless.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: