After the Fort Hood massacre, there were reports that people saw Maj Nidal Malik Hasan’s conduct that they did not report because they did not want to be viewed as biased against his faith or culture.  Two recent news articles highlighted the contrast in reactions to those allegations.

The first encouraged people to report such conduct: a Congressman is proposing a law to extend “whistleblower” protection to people who make those reports.

The second proved such concerns about “political correctness” valid: a Muslim soldier has implied he was the recipient of inappropriate special attention by the military because of his faith or culture–the very perception Hasan’s peers remained silent to avoid.

First, Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, the Congressman from the district that includes Fort Hood, has sponsored legislation to “encourage service members to report potentially dangerous people to law enforcement agencies.”  The bill was in response to those who feared ‘retribution’ if they reported Hasan’s conduct because he was a Muslim.  Carter said

If a military service member believes any person poses a clear and present danger to the military or the public, they need to be assured that reporting the danger or taking decisive action to prevent an attack is protected under the same whistleblower regulations as those for reporting suspected sexual harassment or mismanagement of funds or resources…

Members were afraid of being accused of ‘profiling’ based on religious and ethnic grounds, which could be a career-killing offense…

A Stars and Stripes article reports on a Muslim Soldier who implies he was a victim of that very act of profiling.  The article is centered on the denial of his request to live off of the Army post to which he is assigned in Germany.  The article is provocatively titled “Muslim soldier’s fears lead to off-post housing request,” except that nowhere in the article was “fear” an issue–just “hassle.”  In a prior assignment when the Soldier lived off post,

Neither my wife nor I [had] to deal with the hassles of signing in my relatives on post wearing hijabs and shalwar kamiz.

In point of fact, the article clearly states the reason for his request:

[He] wanted to live off-post to ease visits with his parents, brothers, uncles and friends…

Still, the Stripes strains to connect his request with an overarching cultural environment in the military.  The more relevant information is in his implications that he was treated differently due to his culture or religion:

[He] said he was investigated once as a possible subversive. And once at Hohenfels, he said, he dropped an uncle by the main gate to wait for him while he ran an errand; by the time he returned, the military police had questioned the uncle about why he was there.

While the stories are recounted casually, the very fact that they are an issue at all is the reason that Maj Hasan’s peers wouldn’t have reported questionable behavior:  Otherwise routine actions the military should take are “second-guessed” because of the perception they will be viewed as improperly motivated.  Nothing he cites is supported by such an implication.

While his statement is heavy with implication, the Soldier does not say why he was “investigated,” so it is impossible to discuss.  With regard to his uncle, any military member who leaves a civilian relative at the main gate of a post on foreign soil, which is manned by military police, and doesn’t bother to ask or explain the situation to them can rest assured that their visitor will be questioned, as they should be.  To imply that he was treated differently–which may be a function of news editing, not his own words–is disingenuous.

Even though the beginning of the article gave one reason for his desire to live off post, secondary motives begin to emerge later on.  In a surprising display, he implies his fellow Soldiers don’t want to live near him.  He also displays ignorance (or perhaps naiveté) about America’s role in the ongoing war.  He says:

Living in the Army community, people look at you different. It’s an uncomfortable feeling. You can ask any soldier, ‘Do you want to live with someone whose religion you’ve been fighting?’ They’ll tell you. (emphasis added)

When told that the Army values diversity, not segregation, he responded

I said, ‘Sir, the other cultures you’re talking about, we’re not at war with.’

This US Army soldier — one who worked in close concert with local Afghans to “[build] better relations” — appears to think not only that the US Army is fighting Islam and its culture, but that his comrades who fight alongside him do not view him as a friend.  How can he feel safe as a “battle buddy” with his peers in combat if he doesn’t even feel he can live near them at home?

His leadership was apparently unconvinced and denied his request.  He was required to live on post, but he was given a large home on a part of the base with unguarded gates — which would allow his family the freedom of movement that was the basis for his request.  His response?

[He] wasn’t thrilled with the solution that would have him living on post for the first time in his career.  But he said he thought it was “reasonable.”

The long and short of it is he wanted to live off base.  All indications are that it has little or nothing to do with his culture or religion; when the military gave him a military house that alleviated his concerns, it was the fact he had to live on post (something he had avoided thus far in his 10 year career) that bothered him, not the impact on his culture or religion.

His prior assignment was also in Germany, and he appears to want to continue the convenience of living “on the economy” there, which is likely something that many of his peers would love to do as well.  Living on the local economy is valued both for reasons of enjoying the European living and benefiting from a hefty housing allowance that is witheld from those who live on base.  (He may even have taken a hefty hit to his paycheck in being required to move on post.)

Regrettably, and perhaps unintentionally, he still manages to malign the Army:

“If they let me live off-post…they’re admitting there’s a problem.”

The Soldier implies that there’s “a problem” in the US Army, but other than complaining about having to live on post (thus, being treated just like his peers) he never says what it is.  There is also no indication he has identified this “problem” to the Army.  Instead, he uses it as a sound bite in an interview with the media.

Members of the military, like those of any team, are loathe to see their teammates disparage them or their organization in public.  In entering the media spotlight with this article, he runs the risk of alienating his peers who may perceive that he was trying to use his religion to get a “good deal” out of the Army.  He may then perceive the rise of a negative attitude to be another affront to his religion or culture, and the situation will continue to spiral.

All because a Soldier wanted the special favor of living off post.