Active Shooter - Situational Awareness

Several weeks ago I heard a briefing on the new Active Shooter program. The program is designed to help military commanders and members identify and diffuse military personnel who may engage in the kind of traitorous actions like those of Maj Nidal Hasan who shot his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood recently. Years ago another soldier, Sgt Hasan Akbar, threw a grenade into a tent of fellow soldiers. These are certainly tragedies that we should endeavor to prevent.

As I listened to the briefing, however, I was troubled. Like the pamphlet I later picked up on base titled, "Active Shooter: Situational Awareness," the program says that attention should be placed on military personnel who:

1. Have been involuntary discharged or fired from their job
2. Are awaiting disciplinary action such as court-martial
3. Suffering from Post Traumatic Stress
4. Made unsolicited comments about violence, firearms or death
5. Have been served with restraining or no-contact orders
6. Are known to be mentally or emotionally unstable
7. Made comments about being disenchanted with the military
8. Display "anti-war" or "anti-military" sentiments

This list troubles me because several of the items seem to invite abuse or are simply irrelevant in my non-expert opinion. It troubles me more because it fails to capture the two most important characteristics that I think highlight potential active shooters, relationship status and extremist religious affiliation. How many active shooters were married? How many were part of an extremist religious group? When I think of a person who is likely to go postal, I think of a lonely insecure man who latches onto a religious ideology that espouses violence but nowhere in the active shooter program are such characteristics cause for attention.

Instead, using the program's list, a man who makes unsolicited comments about firearms, violence, or death requires extra attention. That covers just about any combat soldier, marine, sailor, or airman I know but leaves those with the least knowledge and experience of our profession free from scrutiny. General Patton would be greatly suspect. The list also identifies Post Traumatic Stress. This seems logical and I would hope those qualified to diagnose PTSD would take proper action. Unfortunately, how are soldiers and airman in the trenches to know who has the disorder, assuming such a person hasn't been removed from duty and given a medical discharge? Certainly the average military person isn't qualified to make that diagnosis and they are more likely to associate legitimate stressful combat experience with the disorder, or so it seems to me. This list draws attention to the best of the military who put themselves in harm's way for defense of their country.

The list is also ripe, in my opinion, for abuse against the kind of military reformers our Defense Secretary is calling for. Those who challenge organizations and provide loyal dissent for the good of the service are now to be viewed with suspicion? As Secretary Gates has acknowledged, we must challenge our superiors despite the impact it may have on our careers. Loyal dissent is not an option, it's a requirement. What is a reformer? It's somebody who is disenchanted with the current state of the military or their service or organization and wants to make it better. But such behavior is cause for extra attention according to this new program. Beyond that, the negative impact on career that Secretary Gates warns is necessary for the sake of our service and our country, is also cause for extra attention and scrutiny. Those who are fired, involuntary separated, or are awaiting disciplinary action require extra attention the list says. This list draws attention to the best of the military who put their careers in harm's way for defense of their country.

And what if you display "anti-war" sentiments? While you're damned if you make unsolicited comments about firearms, violence, or death you're also damned if you make comments that are anti-war apparently. I can think of plenty of great soldiers and airman who express the idea that "no soldier likes war" but that they prepare themselves to kill the enemy to preserve the peace. That testimony would ding them twice as a possible murderous traitor for two different and contradictory reasons.

So what does the list show us? It shows us the "safest" person in uniform is one who has never been to combat, has never been so disenchanted with things to risk career to reform an organization or service, has never been disciplined, and has never made comments or expressed sentiments concerning the very nature of their professional obligation. Such a person is safe from any extra attention and suspicion even if they are a lonely adherent to an extremist ideology who is unable to connect in an intimate relationship.

This program may not make us safer, but it stands to prevent the best among us from making our organizations better in defense of our nation. I am disenchanted with this program which, of course, may be cause for extra attention. Unfortunately, I have no doubt I'm getting just that.