


The central reality is that 13 people are dead on American soil, all but one in service to the country as a member of the U.S. Army. Sergeant Amy Kreuger of Kiel, Wisconsin, enlisted explicitly in response to 9/11, she said, to oppose the forces that caused that day. These appear to be the same violent forces that turned Major Hasan into an instrument of terror.


The Fort Hood massacre makes clear, again, that Islamic terror is unavoidably a domestic U.S. problem as well. There is a strain in American thinking that deludes itself in believing that somehow this force will occupy itself mainly with blowing up marketplaces in faraway Pakistan or Afghanistan. On Thursday, their problem was our problem.

In the aftermath of these shootings, the best venue for exploring the domestic threat from radical Islam and what to do about it is Senator Joe Lieberman's proposed hearings into the Hasan murders. News reports piecing together Major Hasan's history suggest an association years ago with a pro-al Qaeda imam at a mosque in northern Virginia. That imam left for Yemen in 2002, and his lectures there in support of al Qaeda have appeared on the computers of terrorists suspects in the U.S., Canada and the U.K.

Investigators are collecting information from Major Hasan's PC and his email traffic, with officials already noting that he spent time surfing radical Islamic Web sites. This sounds similar in some respects to the aborted car bombings in the U.K. in 2007, committed by Muslim doctors there who also spent evenings absorbing violent exhortations on Web sites. A Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty study that year documented the reach and sophistication of radical jihadi media on the Web—accessible to anyone with an Internet hook-up in Kabul, Islamabad, London or Fort Hood.

Before the Democrats came to power in the 2008 elections, one issue they pushed hardest through the policy debate was their opposition to domestic electronic surveillance in pursuit of Islamic terror activities. If the Hasan investigation concludes that he arrived at his pre-spree cry of "God is great!" after immersion in the world of violent Islamic Web sites and prior time spent at radical domestic U.S. mosques, then we would hope that the response of our lawmakers would be more than a shrug that these 13 dead are simply the price we have to pay for living in "our system."

Likewise, Mr. Lieberman's hearings could explore if the Army needs ways to muster out personnel such as Hasan or recruits ambivalent about fighting fellow Muslims.

Just as Americans can't blink away the dangerous world of radical Islam, however, we also cannot pretend that we can field a military that doesn't include Muslims. The unreality of attempting to fight this enemy without Muslim soldiers or operatives should be obvious. In Iraq, devout Muslims worked loyally as translators and guides for U.S. forces, sometimes dying to rid their country of the world's common enemy, which is homicidal Islamic fanatics.

In recent years U.S. soldiers have fought a common enemy on behalf of and often alongside Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Somalia, and elsewhere. The U.S. is fighting a sworn enemy today, just as in World War II American Germans, Italians and Japanese fought sworn U.S. enemies of the same race and religion. Many American Muslims will do the same if we stay focused on the real enemy, and show we have the will to do what's necessary to find them and stop them.