As an aside, some people have referred to the attack as terrorism. It is not. It is a military attack on a military target, by an American citizen. The term for that is treason. I look forward to Hassan's execution by military firing squad (see comments; the method is less relevant than the outcome clear identification that this is more than mere murder).
Meanwhile, Ricks is asking the obvious questions, which would help answer Marc's questions about telling the difference:
"1. The shooter obviously was a low performer. Why was he shuffled along through the system, instead of simply being let go? I worry that the military often keeps the bottom 5 percent of performers simply because it is easier than getting rid of them.
2. Was he not let go for fear of appearing prejudiced? If so, someone is guilty of moral cowardice, of failing to do the hard right thing instead of the easy wrong.
3. If, as reported, he tended to rant instead of practicing medicine, keeping him on a disservice to the wounded soldiers he counseled. What was his record of treatment, compared to other therapists? Did soldiers complain about him? This should all be reachable information.
4. Did Walter Reed have such a file of complaints about him? If so, was Fort Hood made aware of this when he was transferred? Or was this a classic case of dumping a difficult soldier on another command, in this case with catastrophic results?
5. There appear to have been a number of warning signs. Obviously, it is easy in retrospect to see them. But is there anything that can be done differently? General Casey, the Army chief of staff, said over the weekend that he is worried about a "backlash" against Muslim troops. I think the best way to prevent such an overreaction would be to re-assure soldiers that the Army is uncovering and dismissing Muslim soldiers who veer into extremism."
I'll add that the obvious damage done by leaving this person in a position to counsel other soldiers in difficulty is also very much a part of the equation. And yes, political correctness idiocy has betrayed those he counseled, as well as the soldiers who died at Fort Hood.
It is not difficult to tell the difference between a believing Muslim, many of whom have served and continue to serve in the armed forces, and an advocate of shari'a, or sympathist with jihad. It was very easy for many of this traitor's colleagues to tell. It is similarly easy to tell if someone has white supremacist tendencies. In the military, it's actually pretty hard to entirely hide these things due to constant close contact under pressure.
The narrative of "Islam is a religion of peace" is dead outside of brain-dead politically correct circles. As Grim points out, it is instead of a religion of epic quest to convert the world, by means of both arms and persuasion, to the Muslim faith. Which, as an official component, includes the imposition of theocratic religious law on the population.
That's reality - and it's a reality that is fundamentally different from Judaism and Christianity.
It's also reality that many Muslims, like many Christians and Jews, have a fairly selective set of which religious beliefs they're serious about and which they ignore. But the question is NOT how to tell the difference between a shari'a advocate and a loyal officer. The question is how easy, or difficult, or even hazardous it is to report a problem, and whether it gets dealt with once reported. This is the question whether the problem is an Islamonazi, white power nazi (there have been some troubling reports of failure to deal with those, too, in the Army), black power fanatic, or whatever.
Large swathes of people in America are losing confidence that this process works, even in the Army, which clearly failed in its moral duty to protect its soldiers. Those failures push the default position - one of firewalling a religion whose current links to ubiquitous, organized violence around the world are consistent, widespread, and undeniable. A link that taints many people who may not deserve it - but the restoration of honor is a burden they will have to carry.
You may not like that reaction. You may consider it unjust, or unwise, or both. But unless people start to believe that threats will be dealt with, the backlash will grow. Oddly, you see, most people prioritize their own lives and safety, and the safety of those close to them, far above abstract considerations like the sensibilities of Muslims in countries where imams regularly preach hatred and war. And if the result of that backlash harms our society as a whole, the people involved in it will be, at best, only very secondarily to blame.
This is a fixable problem. Refusing to fix it has had consequences. And will have consequences.