How Muslim US Soldiers Will Suffer More Conflicts Now -updated -edited

I think my question: ‘How much effort did the US military make to prevent prejudice on their Muslim brothers-in-arms?’ was somewhat answered here:

‘Media coverage of the Fort Hood killings has been factually challenged and quick to jump to conclusions about terrorism and political correctness, but the underlying problem is much bigger, Mark Benjamin argues. The real question: Why was alleged shooter Nidal Malik Hasan an Army psychiatrist in the first place? Given his belief that Muslims shouldn’t be killing other Muslims in battle, “It’s hard to imagine Hasan being particularly empathetic with his patients.”

‘The catastrophic state of the Army medical establishment is sadly familiar, Benjamin writes for Salon. “Remember the Walter Reed scandal? The horrific treatment of traumatic brain injury and PTSD that has gone on for years?” he writes. “Army medicine has been dropping the ball on these issues for a long time. Given that history, it’s not hugely surprising they’d miss warning signs with Hasan and just let him go on being a doctor.”‘ –Salon

One of my blogging buddies thought I was justifying Hasan’s action. He saw evidence I did not. But I insist on this question: How much effort did the US military make to prevent prejudice on their Muslim brothers-in-arms?:

‘Commentators are working overtime to explain away the Fort Hood shootings as a personal breakdown rather than what it obviously was, three conservative columnists argue today: a terrorist assault by an Islamic extremist.

‘The explanation for Major Hasan’s actions should be crystal clear to anybody not afraid of offending Muslim sensibilities, Dorothy Rabinowitz argues in the Wall Street Journal. “It was an act of terrorism by a man with a record of expressing virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments.”

‘The “national rush to therapy,” the effort to portray Hasan as “a disturbed individual under a lot of stress,” rather than Muslim militant in the US military ranks, is understandable but patronizing, David Brooks writes at the New York Times. “If public commentary wasn’t carefully policed, the assumption seemed to be, then the great mass of unwashed yahoos in Middle America would go off on a racist rampage.”
‘There’s a real problem when the media “is eager to jump to the conclusion that peaceful political opponents are in league with violent extremists, but is terrified to consider the possibility that violent extremists really are violent extremists if doing so means calling attention to the fact that they are Muslims,” argues Jonah Goldberg at the Los Angeles Times.’

There are serious questions to be answered as to why the Fort Hood incident. And the first is: Did the US military take steps to prevent prejudice against muslim US soldiers? If not, that maybe the blunder that caused the Fort Hood massacre:

‘As the American Muslim community takes pains to distance itself from Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shootings add misery to the already complicated lives of Muslims serving in the armed forces. Drawn to the military by patriotism, Muslim soldiers arrive in Afghanistan or Iraq to find themselves confronting fellow Muslims in battle, while fighting alongside soldiers who spew slurs like “raghead”—then return home to take flak at the local mosque for “killing Muslims,” the New York Times reports.

‘“It’s kind of like the Civil War, where brothers fought each other across the Mason-Dixon line,” one veteran of Iraq tells the Times. “I don’t want to stain my faith, I don’t want to stain my fellow Muslims, and I also don’t want to stain my country’s flag.” The military itself shows ambivalence towards Muslim recruits: Their language skills and cultural expertise are urgently needed, but individual Muslims are suspect, a mistrust likely to worsen in the wake of Fort Hood.’ –New York Times