Military Class Suspended For Fear Of Insulting Islam
It's violent, bloody, brutal, but the stealth war is in the information battle space. And we are are losing.
- Feb. 14, 2012: Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP)
The Pentagon suspended the course in late April when a student objected to the material. The FBI also changed some agent training last year after discovering that it, too, was critical of Islam.
The teaching in the military course was counter to repeated assertions by U.S. officials over the last decade that the U.S. is at war against Islamic extremists — not the religion.
"They hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit," the instructor, Army. Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, said in a presentation last July for the course at Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Va. The college, for professional military members, teaches midlevel officers and government civilians on subjects related to planning and executing war.
Dooley also presumed, for the purposes of his theoretical war plan, that the Geneva Conventions that set standards of armed conflict, are "no longer relevant."
He adds: "This would leave open the option once again of taking war to a civilian population wherever necessary (the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki being applicable...)."
His war plan suggests possible outcomes such as "Saudi Arabia threatened with starvation ... Islam reduced to cult status," and the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia "destroyed."
A copy of the presentation was obtained and posted online by Wired.com's Danger Room blog. The college didn't respond to The Associated Press' requests for copies of the documents, but a Pentagon spokesman authenticated the documents. Dooley still works for the college, but is no longer teaching, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said.
Dooley refused to comment to the AP, saying "Can't talk to you, sir," and hanging up when reached by telephone at his office Thursday.
“Plenty of U.S. military officers and troops were inspired by their service in either Iraq or Afghanistan to learn Arabic or Dari and study the peoples of the region. I left the Army in 2004, as a matter of fact, to pursue a master’s degree in Middle Eastern Studies at the American University of Beirut,” says Andrew Exum, a retired Army captain who now serves as a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. “But plenty of other officers and troops began their own amateurish studies of Islam and now, like Lt. Col. Dooley, peddle claims to know the truth about the violence and hatred at the heart of Islam. Pope’s warning that a little learning can be a dangerous thing is certainly relevant here. These hucksters, like the Robert Spencers of the world, know just enough to make themselves sound credible to an uninformed audience and hide their prejudices under a thin layer of amateurish, ideologically motivated scholarship.”
I have never heard of Andrew Exum, the man behind this vicious little smear, or his Center for a New American Security.
So I did a search and found that on their Board of Directors are Madeleine Albright and Richard Armitage. That explains it: Exum is a member of an organization that represents the same failed policies and incorrect analysis that led us on two foredoomed democracy projects in Iraq and Afghanistan, and still have our troops serving as a shooting gallery for Afghan jihadists in the Afghan army to this day. Their record is one of willful blindness, ignorance, and mistake after bloody mistake, such that they will one day be excoriated by all free people, if any survive. I will put my record and my scholarship up against Exum's or anyone else there at any time.
Indeed, if Andrew Exum is willing to debate Islam and jihad with me (yes, I already know he isn't, as all these smear artists are cowards who do not have the integrity to back up their statements), I will travel to any venue at my own expense for this debate. Exum, like so many others, claims my work is inaccurate without producing a single inaccuracy -- while those who claim to find inaccuracies in it pump out windy tu quoques and ad hominem attacks that never actually refute anything I've said. In all this they serve the OIC/Muslim Brotherhood agenda of demonizing and marginalizing all those who dare to speak the truth about the jihad threat they have done so much to enable.