In the weeks since Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire on unarmed military and civilian personnel at Fort Hood, the media has focused much of its attention on whether the Army, FBI, and intelligence agencies failed to heed all-too-clear signals emanating from the gunman that he was intent on causing harm.
While military and civilian intelligence were aware of red flags leading up to the massacre, most notably Hasan’s regular e-mail communications with an al-Qaida-supporting, Yemeni-based sheik, they concluded that Hasan did not pose an actionable threat since he never made any threats towards his fellow soldiers.
Whether the Army succumbed to political correctness in failing to proactively intervene or made a good faith determination that there was no cause for concern will continue to be debated, and, undoubtedly, will be the primary focus of the upcoming Army report on this tragic incident.
Seemingly lost in the intense examination of the Army’s failure to identify the threat posed by Hasan is a question that has received almost no media attention and which constitutes a much more serious act of malfeasance: why not a single person in the Army Readiness Center that was targeted by Hasan, and which contained well over 100 military and civilian personnel, was armed.
Think about it. Not a single armed guard on duty. No enlisted men with weapons to ward off a possible attack, be it by terrorists, fellow soldiers, or civilians. Indeed, it took the heroic actions of civilian police personnel, unaffiliated with the military, to put an end to the murderous assault. Those present in the room have stated that their best defense against the maniacal gunman was to dive under tables and throw chairs at him. There is no telling how many more would have been killed had the Killeen Police Department not responded with such haste and heroism.
It is simply inexplicable how those responsible for security at Fort Hood could have allowed its personnel to be so exposed. An Army spokesperson, when asked about this lapse, indicated that the readiness center was “not a place where weapons were appropriate,” an apparent reference to the medical nature of the facility. I can understand prohibiting Army personnel being examined from carrying weapons, but there is no excuse in the world for failing to place armed guards, whether civilian or military, in the room to deal with an infiltration by someone hostile and armed.
What would have been the most likely result had there been such guards stationed at the facility? Either Hasan, aware of the armed security, would have been deterred, or, had he decided to nonetheless carry out his attack, would have been disabled with minimal casualties, undoubtedly fewer than the 53 killed or wounded, and this would have happened well before he would have had time to empty more than 100 rounds of ammunition at his defenseless targets.
Unlike the question of whether signals were missed regarding Hasan’s pre-attack behavior, there are no gray areas here. The real tragedy of Fort Hood is that the gross negligence–in my mind, bordering on criminal–of those responsible for securing the readiness center on November 5th cost precious lives and altered, probably forever, the physical and/or psychological wellbeing of those present on that tragic Thursday.
This must never happen again to the brave men and women who protect our freedoms. Not only should the Army, as well all the armed services, immediately rescind any directives that enjoin the presence of armed guards where large numbers of personnel congregate, but also should affirmatively require the presence of such a deterrence.
Men and women who volunteer to be sent overseas and confront a foreign enemy should never again have to face such a horrifying danger within the confines of an American military base–or anywhere on American soil.
Nathan Mitzner is a junior risk management insurance major. He can be reached for comment at
