FORT HOOD'S CAUTIONARY LESSON

WASHINGTON -- As we looked at the TV and other press coverage of the terrible massacre at Fort Hood last week, we rather quickly learned a lot about American Muslims, our military and our citizens in general -- only it is not exactly what we would expect to learn.

Like many Americans, I sat transfixed, watching the developments at the Texas base on Nov. 5. Who could have believed that anyone, especially an Army officer, would suddenly shoot dead 13 mostly fellow soldiers and wound 31 others?

But I soon became even more transfixed by the immediate, hours-long search for the identity of the only suspect in the killings, the Jordanian-American Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, and for the reasons why this "quiet ... calm ... odd recluse, unassuming on the surface, but roiling within," in the words of many different witnesses, should have carried out such an act.

It was an example of the kind of "mental breakdown" American military men and women went through in Iraq and Afghanistan, the TV reporters said repeatedly. It was a function of the post-traumatic stress syndrome that soldiers were returning home with, particularly after being submitted to three, four even five turns in our Middle East wars, which are clearly wearing down the nation's volunteer army. Perhaps the alleged shooter needed a doctor!

But none of these early analyses held up in the light of day. Maj. Hasan had never been to either Iraq or Afghanistan. There was no reason for him to be stressed from battle because he had never seen combat. He was quoted as telling his relatives that some soldiers had harassed him for being a Muslim, but he was after all a major, a level at which men are supposed to be able to deal with lower-level upstarts. As for needing a doctor, he WAS a doctor -- indeed, he was a psychiatrist who treated men and women with stress syndromes.

After three to four hours of coverage, the story began slowly to fill out. For the first time, the suspect's Arabic name was revealed fully; little by little, information began to seep out indicating Maj. Hasan was not only a Muslim, but also that he had at times revealed sympathy for suicide bombers. And according to men and women on the spot, before shooting, the killer had shouted the words used by the radicals across the Middle East, "Allahu Akbar," or "God is great."

Even at this point, extraordinary care was being taken to NOT link this man or any American Muslim to the radical Islam that we are losing American, NATO and other lives to every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. At times one had to wonder how far "political correctness" regarding Muslims in America is now going.

Let's back up for some facts. The Pentagon tells us that there were 3,409 Muslims in active military duty as of April 2008. And they remain a minority; there are only 24 Muslim cadets out of a total student body of 4,400 at West Point. In fact, the military is attempting to recruit Muslims as a top priority and, under the Army's "09 Lima" program, American Muslims willing to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan receive hefty signing bonuses.

Indeed, TV rightly brought out some of the most handsome, polished and well-spoken military Muslims one could imagine to illustrate how valiantly many serve the American nation. I know and cherish many of them.

But there was also something troublesome about the introduction to the man they are holding in Fort Hood, as though we were trying NOT to face the fact that Muslims could easily -- some would argue, should easily -- have problems fighting other Muslims for America or responding to al-Qaida's siren call.

While there is no question in my mind that the vast majority of American Muslims are fine citizens, who have never answered the radical calls from the Middle East and Central Asia, we also have to be in touch with reality at this troubled moment in history. In only the last few weeks we have had the tragic case of a Muslim father in Arizona killing his "too Westernized" daughter by running her over with his car in an American-style "honor killing." We have an American and a Canadian arrested for plotting to fly to Denmark to murder the cartoonist and the editor of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that drove the Islamic world quite mad. And innumerable young Somali Muslims from Minnesota have surreptitiously returned to Somalia to fight with al-Qaida.

It may well be, as some of our best analysts have insisted, that religion played only a small part in this heinous massacre, that the suspect was indeed just a troubled man, perhaps not unrightfully fearful of war itself. But the fact that he grasped radical Islam as symbols of his despair tells us something that we should not disregard.

We have a dangerous balancing act here. We do not want prejudice or (God forbid!) violent acts committed against American Muslims, any more than we want them against Jews or African-Americans or Germans or Chinese. Lower-level officers in the military should -- and must -- make sure that they do not condone harassment of American Muslim troops.

But at the same time, like it or not, we are involved in a conflict against an international radical Islam, an ideology that has and will naturally have an attraction to many men and women, especially those who are lonely or deracinated.

Some day, we hope, all that will be past, but it is still a too-real part of the international scenario. For today, what we want and need is a realistic analysis of the situation and of the players. As last week's events so tragically illustrated, our lives depend upon it.