Betrayal

Too much leniency is emerging in the case of an Army man who turned on his own.

A wide variety of defenses, alias justifications, are being offered in the case of U.S. Army Sgt. Hasan K. Akbar. He’s the 32-year-old Muslim accused of killing two officers and wounding 14 fellow soldiers in a March 23 attack on a group of tents in an pre-Iraq combat zone.

The issue is whether he should be court-martialed. Considering the nature of the crime, the death penalty should be on the table for this cowardly act.

We are told Akbar “had made spontaneous statements related to the incident stating he had done this act because we, or American soldiers, were going to kill and rape Muslims.” The source of that explanation is Staff Sgt. David Maier, an agent with the Criminal Investigation Division. Akbar reportedly talked about the crime in those terms after having been read his rights following his arrest.

There were danger signs. Akbar had been outspoken in his opposition to American involvement in the war beforehand. His fellow soldiers were uneasy but clearly had no idea the man would go as far as he did.

Several soldiers have testified that earlier they had no faith in Akbar’s abilities as a soldier. “He was really incompetent in his leadership ability,” said Sgt. David Walter. Sgt. First Class Daniel Kum said he had not wanted Akbar to go to Iraq with him and his unit because of “his inability to lead soldiers and incompetence in abilities and skills.”

There has been an effort to show that Akbar did not act alone and that another soldier fired a fatal shot in the incident. A variety of smokescreens can be expected.

The man was a disaster waiting to happen from the start; the Army is to be challenged and reprimanded for letting him get to the point he could do such damage.

Akbar told relatives he was wary of going to war in Iraq and his mother says she was concerned he might have been accused because he is a Muslim. This case marks the first time since the Vietnam War that a U.S. Army soldier has been prosecuted for the murder or attempted murder of a comrade during a period of war.

We can be sure that the religious aspects of the Akbar case will be dwelled upon by defenders. Even if he is found guilty, his penalty will not be nearly as severe as it should be. He is being allowed all his rights as a defendant while his victims had no such option.

The Army was at fault for not weeding out this risk before the tragedy occurred. Even so, Akbar engaged in what rates as one of the ultimate betrayals of trust turning on fellow members of the armed forces and killing or injuring them for personal reasons.

There are enough dangers to dodge in the armed forces without having to worry about one of your own doing you in.