On Veterans Day, remembering the 442nd Regimental Combat Team
November 11, 2009 12:43 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
Clearly, in the wake of the Ft. Hood handgun massacre we've been lots of predictably hateful, angry rhetoric from the right-wing media about the inherent dangers of having Muslims serves in the U.S. military. Conservatives commentators continue to focus in on the military and raise all kinds of warnings about Muslim American soldiers (or, "Muslim Soldiers with Attitude") and how "special debriefings" might be needed to prevent future attacks.
Or as Fox News' Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade put it:
"Because if I'm going to be deployed in a foxhole, if I'm going to be sitting in an outpost, I've got to know that the guy next to me is not going to want to kill me."
I guess all you can say in times like this is thank goodness Fox News, or a national conservative media voice like it, did not exist many decades ago and wasn't able to influence U.S. history at its critical junctures. Imagine the 1960's battle over civil rights if Fox News had a daily say in that debate? And, of course, imagine the mad hysteria it would have spread after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
And specifically, imagine what that right-wing media reaction would have been to the news of the creation of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, comprised of Japanese American soldiers, many of whom came from families that had been forced into internment by the U.S. government [emphasis added]:
After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the loyalty of all Japanese Americans were questioned. When they were finally allowed to enlist for military service, they were placed in segregated units. The 100th Battalion became the first battalion of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, but was allowed to keep its name, "100th Battalion (Separate)" due to the renowned records in its first year of service overseas.
...
The Japanese American soldiers of WWII proved their loyalty through the sacrifices they made in service to their country, the United States. The decorations and awards they earned are a permanent and indisputable record of their bravery and their patriotism.
For its size and length of service, the 100th Infantry Battalion and the 442nd Regimental Combat Team was the most decorated US military unit. The Military Intelligence Service (MIS) was credited as having "saved countless lives and shortened the war by two years" by Major General Willoughby, General McArthur's Intelligence Chief.
UPDATED: It's interesting that, according to new polling, a majority of Americans, 57 percent, seem more concerned, post-Ft. Hood, about the backlash against Muslim American soldiers, than they do about the supposed danger of having any of them serve in the military.
UPDATED: A note about the Rasmussen poll and how just how poorly it's worded. (Surprise!) Especially this question, which is getting most of the attention:
2* Should the shooting incident be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act or by civilian authorities as a criminal act?
60% Military authorities as a terrorist act
27% Civilian authorities as a criminal act13% Not sure
Why is it an either/or question? Why are respondents forced to pick between a "military" terrorist investigation and "civilian" criminal investigation? It literally makes no sense, since of course, the FBI (i.e. a "civilian" authority) has been investigating "terrorists acts" in this country for generations. Civilian authorities launch terrorist investigations all the time, so why does Rasmussen pretend that only "military authorities" do that?
Why would Rasmussen formulate a question that makes no sense?
Wow...more Drudge-like reporting from mmfa. Boehlert's assertion is nothing more than a contortion of polling numbers to reach a false conclusion.
You read the poll...and it showed that only 23% strongly support the wistful conclusion by Boehlert...while 74% had little concern to none at all about a backlash. Boehlert is simply practicing a stale, partisan media trick...a media trick that is a mirror image of Matt Drudge.
Concerned about a muslim backlash? Then explain away the results from the poll cited by Boehlert that show 76% of the respondents were in favor of removing all officers like Hasan from active duty.
You can't believe the headlines written by Drudge. You have to follow the sources to find the real story...and efforts like this one by Boehlert put him in the same category as Drudge...less than honest.
I'm pretty sure that constitutes a majority.
29+11 = 40 (not concerned)
The only trick being played here is how you wrote it up. There are 57 percent, according to the polling numbers, that are concerned (strongly, or somewhat) with the potential backlash due to the psychos shooting rampage last week.
I'm not sure where you're getting the 76% number of people who want people like Hasam removed from duty. Ah, never mind, I see it now. It's a nice leading question though don't you think? The question reads:
4* Starting now, should the army remove from active duty all officers like Major Nadal Malik Hasan who try to make contact with radical terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda?
And, we already know that the shooter made contact with these people as research. It was investigated, and dismissed.
The ruse was performed by Boehlert. He gets to his conclusion by claiming most are concerned about a backlash by including those respondents who only had a little concern.
The gist of the poll responses are plain enough...only 23% are very concerned and only 11% have no concern at all...leaving most in the middle with little concern at 63%.
Boehlert's claim that the majority are concerned is a classic spin of the numbers. You get to 74% by totaling those who show little or no concern...34-29-11...totaling 74%.
Boehlert's attempt is the same thing that those on the right practice...Hannity, Drudge, Beck, etc...and I don't appreciate it.
What if you were pinned in the wreckage after an auto accident and had to rely on these numbers to know how many would stop and help you?
23 said hell yeah
34 said maybe
29 said maybe not
11 said hell no
2 couldn't make up there minds.
Not very comforting.
There, there, weaselly.
So people of the same racial and religious heritage as Sgt. Joseph Bozicevich should all be kicked out of the army, right?
(Killed two fellow soldiers at air base in Iraq)
I have heard a LOT of speculation but; I have not heard whether Hassan was a crazy jihadest or just a soldier who had cracked.
I guess we know your opinion?
No, you don't know my opinion...and you haven't read the survey. If you had read the survey question you wouldn't have wasted your time with your SWAG.
So what is your opinion? Should we wait on the facts or should we do the emotional thing and just act now?
But, you sure as heck had not read the poll question before you posted...else you wouldn't have raised the silly proposition about kicking people out of the armed forces because of their race or religion...ergo...your question does not merit a response.
Well, King...this case is closed.
Suppose a pollster asked you, "How concerned are you about an asteroid crashing into the Earth in the next week?"
Of course the military can investigate crimes. Doesn't anybody watch NCIS?
This is not that interesting to me, but it does show me one thing, is that, the conservative media do not represent hardly anyone in this country. They represent a small fringe group of whack-a-doos who are scared of just about everything in the world today, and thankfully, they are a minority of citizens in this country.
We have Muslim soldiers. We have Christian soldiers. We have Jewish Soldiers. Wiccans. Hindus. Buddhists. And so on. And guess what? A large percentage of them (something like 99.9999%) serve our country honorably. Some have died fighting for our country. If you're going to single out Muslims, then you might as well single out every person of every religion in the US military, because at some point in time, or another, every religion has committed acts of terrorism in the name of their God(s).
To make you think that it was a planned Jihad based terrorist attack and any other explanation is namby pamby liberalism.
I use statistical data every day that is based in hard evidence.
(e.g. how big is it, how many failed, etc)
This data is used to help figure out what is right or wrong with a process but; even though the data appears to say a certain thing you have to be careful about how you interpret it. There are multiple variables that can affect the data that you collect and you need to verify that what you see is what you think it is.
Statistical polling methods are more of the same with a different magnitude of built in error. How you word the question, how you conduct the test, who does the polling (male or female) will tend to skew the data. Interpreting this data is even more rife with error.
No one should base any conclusions about any situation based on polling numbers that they have seen.
When makes a statement like "Seventy-six percent (76%) believe the army should remove from duty all officers like Hasan who attempt to contact radical terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda." you have to be very careful how you interpret that.
What do you mean by "officers like Hasan"?
What defines "contact".
Hopefully you get my point.