GovernmentExecutive.com

David Brooks has what seems to me to be an extraordinarily ill-advised column in this morning's New York Times, in which he argues that the debate over why Major Nidal Hasan has turned too quickly from Islamic extremism to psychoanalysis. I say ill-advised not because I don't think religious extremism can lead to terrorism, but because to entirely dismiss the mental health aspects of this case seems foolish, both from an individual and from an institutional standpoint.

Religious extremism is undeniably a source of violence in our society. But it's much more potent when it takes root in someone who is mentally unstable, and not receiving proper care. As Matt Yglesias writes this morning "I think a pretty good case can be made that this kind of situation actually is the main face of the terrorist threat. Not a big well-thought-out plot centrally directed from a'"safe haven' in South Asia and undertaken by brilliant covert operatives, but the desperate violent act of a clearly disturbed individual." Matt goes on to point out that such spree killings by deranged individuals are obviously dangerous and devastating, but they aren't a massive threat to national security.

But while the threat may not be on a massive scale, it is one that, if we put sufficient resources into it, we can probably combat fairly successfully within American institutions. Major Hasan had actually recommended in a presentation that Muslim soldiers be allowed to leave service as conscientious objectors "to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events." I'm not sure that's the right solution. But having enough therapists to meet military demand, and making sure that those therapists have access to mental health treatment themselves could help identify folks who aren't doing well, and folks who maybe shouldn't be in military service at all. It's part of the military's job not only to function effectively overseas but to keep its own personnel, and people like the two Veterans Affairs employees Hasan killed, safe at home, too. The idea that we can somehow defeat, divert, or neutralize an international ideological movement is a stretch. But the idea that we can fight mental illness among the people who are fighting to keep us safe is not.