Today marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. But even that phrase doesn’t do the story justice: The wall did not fall — it was pushed. I’m currently writing a history of the past 20 years, and have a good deal about the Berlin Wall in that book — here is some of what will be published:
In 1961, the East German government erected a physical Iron Curtain, an ugly combination of cement and electrified fencing with armed guards, an internal barricade that separated the two nations and their brethren on each side. But at midnight, 9 November 1989, the government of East Germany finally gave permission to its citizens to peaceably pass through the gates of the Berlin Wall. East Germans “surged through, cheering and shouting, and were be met by jubilant West Berliners on the other side. Ecstatic crowds immediately began to clamber on top of the Wall and hack large chunks out of the 28-mile barrier.” For some years, I have described something I call “the gates test.” Someone can judge a country by which direction people run when the country erects gates: Do they flee in, or do they risk life and limb to get out? (Over the course of some four decades until 1989, some 2.5 million people had fled East Germany and many were shot trying to flee.) There was no better symbol of the gates test than the Berlin Wall.
Two years prior, President Reagan had gone to Berlin and described it as “a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers.” Perhaps the most famous words of Reagan’s presidency were those he uttered that summer day in 1987: “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” And now, within hours of the granting of travel by the East German government, the German citizens were, themselves, taking pickaxes to the scar.
I give you the words of two German Chancellors: Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel. When the wall came down, Helmut Kohl told President George H. W. Bush: “Without the U.S., this day would not have been possible. Tell your people that.” And last week, Angela Merkel said this:
I think of John F. Kennedy, who won the hearts of the Berliners, when, during his visit in 1961, after the wall had been built, he reached out to the desperate citizens of Berlin by saying, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” I think of Ronald Reagan, who, far earlier than most, clearly saw the sign of the times and, standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate, already in 1987, called out, “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” This appeal shall remain forever in my heart.
I thank George Herbert Walker Bush for the trust he placed in Germany and then-Chancellor Helmut Kohl, offering something of immeasurable value to us Germans already in May 1989: partnership in leadership. What a generous offer 40 years after the end of the Second World War.
“Forever in her heart,” “partnership.” “leadership.” “Immeasurable value.” “Generosity.” That is what the United States of America stands for, that is what this country dedicated to a proposition stands for. That is what our men and women in uniform fight for.
And this is what makes the story out of Ft. Hood at once very complicated and at once very simple. We have spoken of a battlefield in the global war against Islamic terrorism that was inflicted on us, a battlefield that too many have isolated to just Afghanistan, or just Iraq, or just Pakistan, or just the Middle East. We have cited how that battlefield, however, is also Arkansas, Michigan, California, New York, New Jersey, all over the homeland of the United States.
Last week the battlefield showed itself in one of the most unimaginable places: Ft. Hood, Texas. We don’t need to wring our hands and our brains to try and figure out the motive of the terrorist, when someone fires on Americans, killing as many as he possibly can, shouting “Allahu Akbar,” that is all I need to know. The question of motive need not be asked, especially not when you have further evidence of devout religiosity, and vocal criticism of our military missions in our other battlefields, like Iraq and Afghanistan: all of which was true of Nidal Hasan.
But there are questions to be asked and I suspect many of the answers will be unsatisfying — I also suspect we will see memos or some kind of paperwork on Nidal Hasan that will prove embarrassing to officials in the FBI, our intelligence services, or the military. There are many stories to relay relating to Hasan — here’s just one, reported by the AP: “Fellow students of Hasan in a military training course complained to the faculty about Hasan’s ‘anti-American propaganda,’ but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.”
Maybe so. But given the long chain of other stories about Hasan, there had to be paperwork. There had to be knowledge. And if nothing else, nothing else, questions as to why a formal investigation was not opened up on him after the FBI tracked Internet postings about suicide bombings by someone with his name remain. Questions as to why he would cite his nationality as Palestinian when he was born in Virginia remain. Questions as to why colleagues stated they were uncomfortable referring patients to him remain. Questions as to how you can have a member of the U.S. military’s fellow doctors recount that they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a “Muslim first and American second” remain. Questions as to how a member of the U.S. military can speak of infidels deserving to have their throats cut and have boiling oil poured down their throats and can stay in the military remain.
Questions as to why all this can at once remain true and he can be quoted as saying he wanted a discharge from the military and nothing was done remain.
I just offer this, the Code of Military Conduct:
I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause …. I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
Final thought: If we can discharge officers and enlisted personnel for being gay, we can separate them and discharge them for being Muslim radicals, can we not? Or has, indeed, political correctness so infected our institutions that the U.S. military is now affected, too?
— William J. Bennett is the host of the nationally syndicated radio show, Bill Bennett’s Morning in America, and the Washington Fellow at the Claremont Institute.