Two interpretations immediately sprung up to explain the Fort Hood massacre.The military leadership, politicians, the media, and the Left focused on poor Maj. Nidal Hasan, victim of — pick your specific — “racism,” “harassment he had received as a Muslim,” a sense of “not belonging,” “pre-traumatic stress disorder,” “mental problems,” “emotional problems,” “an inordinate amount of stress,” or being deployed to Afghanistan, his “worst nightmare.”

In contrast, those of us on the right saw the assault in the light of Islamist efforts to kill infidels and bring them under Islamic law. We perceive Hasan not as victim but as jihadi. Some evidence for this view:

He yelled “Allahu Akbar,” the jihadi’s cry, as he fired his guns.

His superiors reportedly put him on probation for inappropriately proselytizing about Islam.

One former associate quotes Hasan’s saying, “I’m a Muslim first and an American second,” and recalls Hasan justifying suicide terrorism.

Another recalls that Hasan “claimed Muslims had the right to rise up and attack Americans.” A third described him as “almost belligerent about being Muslim.”

The jihad explanation may be more persuasive than the victim one, but it’s also far more awkward to articulate; easier to blame “a sense of not belonging” than to discuss Islamic doctrines. And so the Army learns no lessons from this atrocity. (For a full version of this argument, see article “Sudden Jihad or ‘Inordinate Stress’ at Fort Hood?”) More.....