ROCHELLE RILEY: Why was sergeant still in the Army?

[Sarge]

http://www.freep.com/features/living/riley4e_20050504.htm

May 4, 2005

BY ROCHELLE RILEY

FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

Am I missing something?

Two years ago, just days before his unit was set to join the invasion of Iraq, an Army sergeant threw grenades into the tents of fellow soldiers and shot those able to flee the flames. When he was done, two soldiers lay dead, 14 wounded.

The sergeant, Hasan Akbar, a 34-year-old Muslim convert who grew up in south-central Los Angeles, was captured, not killed, that night in Kuwait, and returned to the United States to become the first American since the Vietnam War to be prosecuted for killing a fellow soldier during wartime.

A 15-member military jury sentenced him to death last week, making him the sixth inmate on military death row at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.

Akbar said he'd endured anti-Muslim taunts and threats and felt that his life was in danger. He claimed that he had no choice but to launch the March 2003 attack on the U.S. soldiers who threatened him.

His own defense attorneys said Akbar was mentally ill.

But prosecutors said that Akbar made it his mission to stop his fellow soldiers from killing other Muslims and that he had wanted to kill Americans for some time.

Akbar's diary, one he kept by computer for 13 years, spoke loudest:

Written proof

In 1992, he wrote: "I made a promise that if I am not able to achieve success because of some Caucasians, I will kill as many of them as possible."

In a 1996 entry, he wrote: "Destroying America is my greatest goal."

In 1998, he joined the Army.

And in 2003, in the week before he went to Kuwait, he wrote: "As soon as I am in Iraq, I am going to try and kill as many of them as possible." (Prosecutors say he was referring to fellow soldiers).

Akbar's former platoon leader testified during his trial that Akbar was unfit for duty. He got fired from a leadership position just before the invasion. "He really was kind of fired and forgotten," Capt David Storch told a jury.

So which question is the right one: How could the U.S. military send an obviously mentally ill man who abhorred fellow soldiers and walked around talking to himself to Kuwait with those soldiers?

Or: How could officers be so fed up with Akbar's poor performance that they removed from him a leadership position, but didn't relieve him of duty because it was "too complex" at a chaotic time?

Or: Why isn't the case of a domestic terrorist who infiltrated the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., and later attacked his own unit at the top of the news?

Someone messed up

No matter where the truth lies, one thing is clear: Somebody messed up. Somebody slipped up. Somebody wasn't paying attention. Now two soldiers are dead; one is on death row. And 14 bear scars.

Hasan Akbar's hatred may have been borne of racism or frustration or lunacy. But whatever its origin, he should not have been allowed to carry that hatred into battle.

When he joined the Army in 1998 to pay off college loans, someone should have kept up with where his mind went. Soldiers still fighting in Iraq need to know that their comrades have their backs, and not get fatally shot in the back as Capt. Christopher Seifert, 27, was as he tried to escape Akbar's grenade attack. (Air Force Major Gregory Stone, 40, died in that blast.)

News networks spent more time on a runaway bride than with stories about how a man who pledged to destroy America could be shipped to Kuwait with men he believed were enemies.

I'm not interested in the bride. I want to know how officials missed Hasan Akbar and whether there are others like him still in the ranks.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Yeah, I'd say you missed something. Anyone know what it is?

[airborneskins]

Hey Sarge,

Nice post. I would have to say that the NCO's in his chain of command Did not do their job. This is the first time that I have heard anything about his journals, but if the man hated the US so much, why didn't his Direct Supervisors (Squad leader etc..) pick up on it? I would say that they failed not only him, but also the ones that died in Kuwait.

Thank you for this post.

[TLusby]

I bet you any amount of money the NCO and Officer chain of command had handcuffs on them for political correctness. Let's face it; the airport security will not even consider pulling a muslim looking person out of the line and searching them since this is defined as "racial profiling". The military officers most likely have been warned about Middle Eastern origin soldiers. THis is an example that clearly shows how crazy this country has become.

[airborneskins]

Originally posted by TLusby

I bet you any amount of money the NCO and Officer chain of command had handcuffs on them for political correctness. Let's face it; the airport security will not even consider pulling a muslim looking person out of the line and searching them since this is defined as "racial profiling". The military officers most likely have been warned about Middle Eastern origin soldiers. THis is an example that clearly shows how crazy this country has become.

There is a difference between "racial profiling" and taking care of your soldiers. As a Non Commissioned Officer, you are trained to take care of your soldiers and look out for thier wellfare. This includes knowing every little thing about them. So his NCO's above him should have noticed something odd. Regardless of color of skin, or religious background, a soldier is a soldier, and a Non-commissioned Officers only job is to take care of soldiers.

[stevenaa]

Is there evidence he voiced any of his opinions. I'm sure the NCO's didn't have access to his personal diary before the attacks. Was he demoted because he had a bad attitude or just did a poor job? It's a large leap from being a bad soldier to being a Muslim sympathiser ready to kill fellow soldiers. It's very easy to assign blame in these sorts of things. Seems to me like the responsible party is going to get what he deserves.

[Larry]

In defense of his NCOs, I'd also susbect that it may be tough to tell the difference between a potential mutineer (I assume the term applies in the Army), and a muslim who enjoys b*tching. (B*tching, I suspect, is a fairly common event in many military outfits.)

[RyansRangers]

Originally posted by airborneskins

Hey Sarge,

Nice post. I would have to say that the NCO's in his chain of command Did not do their job. This is the first time that I have heard anything about his journals, but if the man hated the US so much, why didn't his Direct Supervisors (Squad leader etc..) pick up on it? I would say that they failed not only him, but also the ones that died in Kuwait.

Thank you for this post.

I kinda agree with the fact the NCO's didnt do their job however it is also the responsibility of the Plt ldr lt. for his men and their welfare. There would have been tell tale signs. I wouldnt blame anyone though b/c it was not like he was reg army he went through extensive training to become 101..

As far as the ridiculing and taunting he recieved I dont buy it. I was part of the 101 around that time and during a time of war normally moral is high and your mind is on the task at hand even when you have problems with your comrades.

[airborneskins]

Larry,

While ****ing is a part of the military, NCO's should know what to look for. If you get the impression that I feel it is the NCO's fault that he committed this act, I am sorry. All I am trying to say is that, As an NCO I know that their are certain things that we look for in soldiers and the way that they act. I am sure that this guy had shown some type of behaviour that may have given it away earlier.

Ryan,

I know thatyou know that it is the PLT LDR'S job to know his soldiers too, But as a PLT Ldr you have 30-40 soldiers under you , whereas a Squad Leader will have 10 or so. So It would be easier for the squad leader to pick up on it.

On a personal note: Ryan are your "1 oh Worst" boys going back over soon?

[stevenaa]

"I am sure that this guy had shown some type of behaviour that may have given it away earlier."

How can you be so sure? His behavior may not have been anything more than is typical for a malcontent. I think there is too much unkown to speculate. Now if the records indicate unusuall behavior, that is another story.