ties that bind - sep 11

from different backgrounds were respected, as already documented earlier in this
pamphlet (see pp.21–27) – but the government of the day was also unequivocal
about the rightness of its cause. The moral case against the Central Powers, which
the Ottoman Empire supported in the First World War, and against Nazi Germany
in the Second World War, was clearly explained to men across the Empire. As
already illustrated, they largely responded to the openness and clarity of that
message, buoyed by Britain’s surety of purpose.
Guarding against infiltration
Such self-confident messages are too rare today. The corollary is that anger and
dissent has increased, alienating large sections of the British Muslim community
from the armed forces and its mission. The pressures on active servicemen in this
respect can be exceptionally high and the Fort Hood attack in America in
November 2009 demonstrates the dangers. Indeed, as the global jihadi movement
continues to adopt an increasingly decentralised structure by inspiring
‘self-starters’, such risks are only likely to increase. Mitchell Silber, Director of
Intelligence Analysis at the New York City Police Department, confirmed this view
in his testimony to the US Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee on the Fort Hood attack. ‘[The] home grown threat ... has no
operational relationship with AQ Core, but consists of individuals radicalized in
the West, who utilize al-Qaeda ideology as their inspiration for their actions’, he
told the Committee. 371 Combating that threat means understanding the
ideological challenge groups such as al-Qaeda pose and identifying those
susceptible or likely to be influenced by its message.
The official inquiry conducted by the Department of Defense (DoD) into the
attack at Fort Hood, however, attracted heavy criticism after one of the inquiry’s
co-chairmen, former Secretary of the US Army, Togo West, said:
Our concern is with actions and effects, not necessarily with motivations. 372
Of course, without motivation there would not have been any terrorist attack. That
much is evident from the actions of Major Nidal Hasan who proselytised his
radical beliefs and maintained contact with radical preachers such as Anwar
al-Awlaki. Indeed, Awlaki celebrated the Fort Hood shootings with the following
statement on his website:
Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction
of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a
contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn't exist. Any decent
Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow
Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. The US is leading the war against terrorism which in
reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly
occupying the rest through its stooges.
Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a
Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to
follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.
Conclusion – Reviving Muslim Service in the Armed Forces
371 The Fort Hood Attack: a
preliminary assessment, Senate
Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee,
evidence of Mitchell D. Silber,
available at:
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/in
dex.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.He
aring&Hearing_ID=70b4e9b6d2af-4290-b9fd-7a466a0a86b6
372 U.S. Department of Defense,
Office of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense (Public Affairs), News
Transcript, DoD Briefing with
former Army Secretary West and
Adm. Clark (Ret.) from the
Pentagon (15 January 2010).
Available at:
http://www.defense.gov/Transcri
pts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=
4536
policyexchange.org.uk | 81