Bob McCarty Writes

As an Air Force officer for almost seven years, I became familiar with a document used to both assess how some event, activity or operation turned out and offer recommendations about what could be done to improve the same next time it took place.  We called it an “After-Action Report.”

Three days after Army Maj. Malik Nidal Hasan (right) killed 13 and wounded as many as three dozen at Fort Hood, I find myself amazed at the manner in which many are describing the attack as that of a lone gunmen with mental problems.  They choose to ignore evidence that his actions were those of a radical Islamic extremist wearing the uniform of a U.S. Army officer.  As AARs, they are useless as tools to prevent future such attacks.

Fortunately, there remains a handful of writers in this world who refuse to sugarcoat the truth. Below, I share three of the best examples published in recent days:

• Shooter exposes hole in U.S. terror strategy by Mark Steyn

• Fort Hood Shooter: Another Lone Gunman? by Cinnamon Stillwell

• Mediations on Fort Hood by Stephen W. Browne

Hat tip:  Chuck MacNab at RiteOn.org