The Times runs a moving story about the arrival in Vietnam of the U.S.S. Lassen and its commander, H.B. Le, the first Vietnamese-American to command a Navy destroyer. He hoists the Vietnamese flag out of respect; he gets the red carpet in return. Le hadn’t been back to Vietnam since he fled it as a young boy following the Communist takeover of the south. “Stepping ashore was awesome,” Le told the paper’s Seth Mydans.
We would view it as an inspiring story if, say, an Iraqi or an Afghan came to this country and enlisted in the U.S. military, and rightly so. It would be a symbol of America fulfilling a certain fundamental promise that shines from the waters just outside New York City. And yet, in the wake of the Ft. Hood horror, some on the right who pretend to speak for a more authentic America than the rest of us want to foreclose that option. “Now is the time for a professional and legal backlash against the Muslim community and their leaders,” says the author of some rancid book about a ‘Muslim Mafia’ that’s the figment of his imagination. “It it is time, I suggest, to stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military,” says the “issues analysis” director of the American Family Association. “The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security.”
Funny thing. You know who also believes that Muslims shouldn’t serve in the U.S. military?
The Army psychiatrist believed to have killed 13 people at Fort Hood warned a roomful of senior Army physicians a year and a half ago that to avoid “adverse events,” the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars against other Muslims.
May this serve as a wake-up call to anyone who would dare dream of instituting a religious or ethnic test for entry to any American. I notice from the Times story that Commander Le “prayed at [his] family’s ancestral shrines.” Hmm, doesn’t sound too Christian.
Update: How could I forget — and thanks to Peterr for reminding me — that Sen. Daniel Inouye, the child of Japanese immigrants, fought and won the Medal of Honor in World War II. He enlisted in 1943, as soon as the Army dropped its ban on Japanese-Americans.
Login Here




3 Comments
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
For whatever it’s worth, I have this theory that in Post-Civil Rights America, the bigots are always looking for groups that are different from them that they can target more openly. Gays – hell, there are people who come out and say hate-speech laws will restrict their ability to practice their religion, because, I guess, their religion includes a requirement to incite hatred of gay and lesbian human beings. Latinos can be targeted openly also, as long as you insert “illegal” at some point in your bigoted screed. Their actual status is, of course, irrelevant. And in post 9/11 America, it seems to be broadly accepted among much of the population to hate and fear muslims, especially if they look or dress differently than you and I. Now, none of this means they don’t also hate the more traditional target groups, it just gives them an outlet where they can publicly express their hatred…
mikey
Sorry, Ackerman has this one wrong. While you have been able to find true bigots, who have hateful agendas, they’re a straw man.
The sensible approach is to weed out people, like Major Hasan, who espouse anti-American beliefs, support suicide bombings against the US and it’s allies, and exhibit the violent religious bigotry that Major Hasan expressed.
There are things permitted to a citizen that are not permitted to a military officer.
Daniel Inouye would never countenance the anti-patriotic drivel of Major Hasan. Beliefs matter, not race.
Would that include the white supremacists in the military, since it is for sure, they are espousing anti-American beliefs?