Muslims in the US Armed Forces

[Buzz]

The recent shooting rampage at Fort Hood brings up a question that is so politically incorrect and loaded with baggage that most politicians wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

The question is: Is it possible for a devout Muslim or follower of Islam to serve loyally in today's US Military?

Does the reality of war against other Muslims or Muslim nations present an irreconcilable conflict, or would this only be an issue with those who sympathize with the radical Islamic fundamentalists?

Should the military go to extra lengths to confirm the loyalty of currently-serving Muslim soldiers, or would that be unnecessary, reactionary and discriminatory?

Is the average American Muslim soldier no different from the average American Christian soldier in that loyalty to the US and the military they are serving in is of greater consequence than their religious affiliation and that of whomever they are deployed against?

If it is agreed that "normal" Muslims are no more or less prone to acts of treason than any other group, then what about the radicals? Can they be ferreted out by interviews with with all serving Muslims asking them pointed questions regarding their position on the war on terror?

I suppose references to Obama are unavoidable, but to the greatest extent possible - can we discuss the topic and leave the political partisan bashing to the other thread?

[Maricopa]

Jihadis (as opposed to Muslims) obviously don't belong there anymore than members of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_...rist–Christian
Or any other looney-tunes group.

[Gunner]

Sure. Why not?

[Ron61]

Buzz, that is a good question. I would think that if they are really devout and it goes against their beliefs they could get an exemption like some of our people do. And some that are conscientious objectors due to their religious beliefs can go into the military and be assigned non combat type work which doesn't interfere with their beliefs. Many medics are that way or were when I was in the military and they did a great job, but just didn't carry arms or do any fighting. So to me it seems the same should apply to any person regardless of whether they are Muslims or Christians or whatever. Then they serve a very useful purpose by freeing up others that would have to do those jobs.

Ron

[bomelia]

Multiple Shooters At Fort Hood

That's my answer.

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by Buzz

I suppose references to Obama are unavoidable, but to the greatest extent possible - can we discuss the topic and leave the political partisan bashing to the other thread?

I am seriously not sure what you are getting at here. Plus, this is FOURTH thread to get started on the same subject. A while back, threads were getting thinned out because of this silly tactic. If you don't like what you read, then go start another thread and hope nobody disagrees with you? Whats up with that?

Mike

[Buzz]

Relax Mike. I have not seen any other threads dealing with this specific question. The other thread attempts to establish a link between Obama and the shooter. Different issue entirely.

Gunner - interesting point. The Tuskegee Airmen were simply Americans who really wanted to serve at a time when their kind were not generally welcomed into regular service. Quite a different scenario on the surface, but I suppose little different from a Muslim American who really wants to serve his country.

The 442nd Infantry Regiment is a very relevant example.

Is there anything different about the structure, teachings and philosophies of the Muslim faith that differentiates this scenario from the ones you presented?

[bomelia]

Buzz, my only problem with any of this is that you completely discount a theory you disagree with, then you discount the person talking about the theory. At least from my perspective, that is how it is coming off.

In my personal experience here, when folks do that, tempers fly and things get out of control quickly. Over that last day or so of threads, I feel very certain I would have said anything I said here in person to anybody here.

Chances are, if you had said some of those things to me in person, I would have percieved you as a jerk, wholly counseled and comforted by your own theories and thoughts. However, I know you are not a jerk. Neither am I, nor am I a person screaming from the far right wing.

Peace,

Mike

[Buzz]

Peace buddy. We have had our differences, but I do genuinely think you are a good, regular guy who would be fun to hang around with. No hostility intended -the question I posted in this thread is something I would really like to see discussed freely. I actually wish we had a Muslim member here to post from his perspective.

In light of this concilliatory post, please ignore my response in the other thread.

[Jamo]

I hate duplicate threads...but I don't see this as a duplicate since it presents the question in a vacuum, and not tied to just the Ft. Hood incident.

Personally, I don't want any Gay Japanese Muslim Mormons in the military. If they haven't committed suicide before they joined, then they are really phuked up.

Honestly...we just need to keep phuked up people out of the military. If the screening process ain't working, then we need to fix it. Seems to me we've lowered the standards a bit due to the all-volunteer nature of our forces...gang members, etc. are slipping through. I prefer a draft if we're going to maintain the level of forces we need in order to keep sticking our noses in everyone else's problems, but that's just me.

BTW, people who live on islands scare the sh!t out of me...they tend to walk in circles.

[Gunner]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Seems to me we've lowered the standards a bit due to the all-volunteer nature of our forces...

The all-volunteer nature is not the problem, any more than drafting unwilling and possibly phuked-up people was the problem in the 60s.

Just *possibly* lowering all the standards and waiving obvious faults to meet the drastic warm-body requirements is the problem.

(By the way, some 8 million served in the Vietnam era. Only two million of those were drafted. So don't knock the volunteer method too hard.)

[Jamo]

I disagree with you...I'm not lumping career folks into the ranks of the all-volunteer folks who sign up for a few years and leave. There is a great deal of discussion going on within the military about the ranks being filled with questionable personalities due to the need to cover so many fronts.

And, you might note the message in my post if you reread it...I am in favor of the draft only if we decide to maintain our current level of involvent in multiple venues around the world as we seem to be currently doing. We keep hearing about shortages of manpower if another front opens up...Iran, Korea, etc.

[Gunner]

You disagree that the armed forces have always been composed of significantly more volunteers than draftees? The facts are against you by a large margin.

I maintain that drafting soldiers does not produce a better army, and never has. It's to be avoided in all circumstances. Accepting any warm body with an IQ over room temperature and cracks from ear to ear is the real problem here.

[Jamo]

I really don't like folks that play on words...I deal with professional pricks who try to do that every day in court. People that do that tend to have an extremely short lifespan around here.

I obviously disagreed with your first statement and clarified that I was not lumping career folks in with the group that appears problematic.

Now...I do agree with your very last sentence of the your most recent post, and that appears to be a symptom of relying on an all-volunteer call-up during a time when we have so many committments (as opposed to times of comparative peace).

[392cobra]

I couldn't find who to give credit to for this quote.

"Not all Muslims are Jihadists but all Jihadist are Muslim".

That is why All Muslims in the military deserve a close look at.

[elmariachi]

All good and timely questions:

Originally Posted by Buzz

Does the reality of war against other Muslims or Muslim nations present an irreconcilable conflict,

Yes to the power of 10.

Originally Posted by Buzz

Should the military go to extra lengths to confirm the loyalty of currently-serving Muslim soldiers, or would that be unnecessary, reactionary and discriminatory?

F*&^% discrimination. This ain't Home Depot, its our military and it should not be staffed with an equal rights mandate. It has a sole purpose and we have 233+ years of painful and expensive experience to prove what works and what doesn't. The level of scrutiny for an individual to pursue a career in the military should be the single toughest set of job credentials in this land. But EVERYONE should have to serve. When you graduate from high school you should either have to give two years of mandatory enlisted service or be in an officers training program in college (ROTC, Service Academy etc). Through that we could keep all the good ones we need to be fully-staffed who want a career and say "Thanks for your two years but you ain't got what we need, so get lost" to the rest. Oh, and the bi-product of that would be a much more patriotic and ready-to-work society, instead of all the free-loading wharf rats we got smoking crack and sucking on the FEMA/Welfare/Social Security nipples now.

Originally Posted by Buzz

If it is agreed that "normal" Muslims are no more or less prone to acts of treason than any other group, then what about the radicals?

What is a normal Muslim? Any faith can produce a radical (Jim Jones and David Koresh for example.) But only the Muslim faith sponsors martyrdom, blatantly harbors extremists and terrorists, assumes control of governments and their militaries and undertakes acts of aggression against other countries "in the name of God." How many Christians have hijacked airlines lately in the name of Jesus Christ?

But alas, its all nothing more than wishful thinking......

[bomelia]

OK Buzz, peace. I am still searching for the perfect gun for distance running.

Now I need to think of some southern right wing neo-nazi skinhead response to all of this. Jamo gave me some material. Let me ferment upon that.


Mike

[Gunner]

Originally Posted by Jamo

I really don't like folks that play on words...

I wasn't playing on words. If you reread the posts, it's not entirely clear what you were disagreeing with. I restated one possibility; you were free to - and did - clarify.

I will maintain that the draft is always a bad idea. If a war can't be fought with volunteers - as Viet Nam was, 3 out of 4; as WWII was, well over 9 out of 10 - then maybe there's some fundamental question about the validity of the war - and the population as a whole knows it.

[SPF2245]

I believe a Muslim soldier could serve (and I'm sure there are plenty that currently serve) in the US Military. This question has been asked in different ways in each war, ie, Germans or Japanese soldiers in the US Army serving in WW2. I believe they (soldiers with a relationship/ties/understanding) should be a major part of every war because they expose some of the reasons for tactics, beliefs, character, ect of the soldiers we might be fighting. Granted, there needs to be a close look at their personal bias or potential to leak information, but in some cases...how can you translate or interrogate subjects without someone who understands the language, history or common background needed to build rapport?!

[elmariachi]

Just my opinion....but the quality of 18 year-olds being produced by this country today pales miserably in comparison to 1945-1960. The majority of young men were strong, motivated, ethical, hard-working, patriotic God-fearing heterosexuals. Such is not the case today in our "All volunteer" military.