“Every conceivable effort made” to avoid civilian casualties.
FORT HOOD, Texas — An Army psychiatrist who led a ground assault against U.S. forces stationed at Fort Hood said that yesterday’s ground assault was a “surgical operation,” and that reports of civilian casualties are “likely overblown.”
“We will be performing a full and thorough investigation,” he continued, “Provided we are able to secure the support of authorities on the ground.” U.S. authorities have thus far not allowed Hasan access to the area in which the attack was conducted.
“Of course, caring for injured soldiers remains our top priority,” Hasan said, his breathing assisted by a ventilator, “But I’m actually feeling pretty good right now.”
The U.S. has alleged that anywhere from two to five civilians were caught up in Hasan’s attack. The allegations have not yet been substantiated. Military police refused to comment, citing an ongoing investigation.
Meanwhile, Afghan and Iraqi leaders have offered tepid, sarcastic condolences to the families of those killed. “Yeah, wow, that sucks.” Iraqi president Jalal Talabani wrote in a press statement, “I can’t even imagine. Twelve lives lost. And for what?”
“Well, never mind that,” the statement continued, “CNN is so depressing. What else is on TV? There must be something good. Isn’t it sweeps week?”
Other stories I considered:
So basically, I’m even more insensitive than you thought.
From Chris Floyd’s blog, this was probably the most unsettling comment on his post about this:
” Being Careful
Great piece, Chris. Yet too careful.
I won’t be. We don’t know Hasan’s motive, ‘though I hope we can hear the reasons from Hasan himself. (“Lone gunmen” tend not to last too long in the state of Texas.)
Perhaps his motive was as mad and greedy and perverted and selfish — the only terms possible in the context of current American “values” — as it is being portrayed.
On the other hand, if his conscious motive was to kill — knowing he too would be killed, and he will be soon enough — to stop his personal participation in further Iraqi or Afghani bloodshed: well, I’m sorry, but imho THAT IS AN HONORABLE MOTIVE. And this is an honorable act.
Of course, it all depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn’t it?
Let’s say:
A Major in the Revolutionary Guard of Iran — in a self-immolating protest against the evil of the Iranian regime — takes down a dozen or so Revolutionary Guard soldiers: how would that be played here?
Fucking brilliant.
Great post. Another headline paraphrasing a line from IOZ: Army major mistakes medical center with wedding party.
I don’t really think any motive for murder is honorable, no matter who’s doing it.
(Aside: I just remembered that I was also thinking of writing Soldiers tear tourniquets, bandages from female soldiers’ uniforms, but I didn’t think the joke could hold up for a whole article (not that The Onion lets that stop them…)).