Losing the War on Islamic Terrorism

catastrophic-failure-cut (1)Western Free Press, by Nicholas Short, September 20 2015:

“A national security professional’s duty is not to know true Islam; it is to identify and establish a functional threat doctrine, regardless of whether that doctrine accurately tracks with ‘true’ Islam or not. What matters is that we understand the enemy’s doctrines, not whether he is correct about them,” writes Stephen Coughlin in his most recent book Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad

Detailing how the War on Terror has effectively been lost through decision making that is increasingly less focused on the threat as it presents itself and more on the narratives that have reduced the threat to a nameless abstraction, Coughlin notes, “Today, individuals with Muslim Brotherhood affiliations dictate who can and cannot work for the government on War on Terror issues. They also dictate what can and cannot be discussed.”

“As long as they can keep us from understanding the enemy doctrine, they can keep us from winning the war. There is no knowing this enemy without understanding that doctrine, and there is no victory without knowing the enemy. These are facts. We can lose a war— and our country— for want of readily available facts, which are ignored according to policy,” states Coughlin. To the everyday American who for the most part is not aware of the purges that have taken place within our national security apparatus, this may sound farfetched as if it was the making of a conspiracy theory, but it isn’t. As the declared enemy has stated that their fighting doctrine is based on the Islamic Law of jihad, Islamic Law must be incorporated into any competent threat analysis as the enemy identifies its doctrine along Islamic lines. Today, you will not find a single threat analysis within the myriad of national security agencies that even identifies Islam nor jihad.

The reason for this is due to the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood having insulated itself within our government, military, the national security establishment, transnational bodies, and even interfaith communities. Before we can even grasp how the Muslim Brotherhood today now controls the domestic debate within our own national security circles regarding Islam, we must first look at whom this enemy truly is. The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within as the document that reveals how to achieve this goal was labeled An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.

The 18-page document was entered into evidence in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial. Federal investigators found the document in the home of Ismael Elbarasse, a founder of the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, during a 2004 search. The document was written in 1991 by Muslim Brotherhood operative Mohamed Akram and lays out the Brotherhood’s plan as a “civilizational alternative” for infiltrating non-Islamic forms of society and governance for the “global Islamic state.”

The memo details the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:

The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes.

The memo further identifies numerous groups operating as fronts for the Brotherhood under the heading “a list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” Such groups are as the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim Student Association (MSA), The Muslim Communities Association (MCA), as well as a litany of others are all identified. It is important to note that out of this memorandum the preeminent Muslim Brotherhood front organizations we see working within the United States today were born, those being the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

Coughlin details how the Brotherhood operations in America began with this memorandum as it outlined a strategy in which it first penetrated American institutions under the guise of being a “moderate” organization in order to effect downstream efforts from within. Coughlin writes, “this is what the Brotherhood is referring to when it says it seeks ‘a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers.’ While penetrating government and civil organizations is important, the interfaith movement constitutes a major supporting line of operation in Brotherhood penetration operations.” It is from the interfaith movement, or as the White House likes to call it “Muslim outreach“, that the Brotherhood has gained so much influence over our national security.

For instance, in October 2011, 57 organizations made up the likes of Brotherhood front organizations such as CAIR, ICNA, and MSA wrote a letter demanding President Barack Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (and future Central Intelligence Agency Director) John Brennan, urging him to take action over U.S. government training materials alleged to demonstrate a prejudice against Islam. In the letter the organizations  insist on firings, “re-training” and “purges” of officers, analysts, Special Agents, and decision makers who created or made such materials available. With information that these groups could have only obtained from sources within, they go on to note specific material as having an “anti-Muslim bias” such as the FBI’s 2011 training manual, books at the FBI library in their training academy in Quantico, Virginia, specific FBI trainers and analysts, and a report made by Army Command and General Staff at the Fort Leavenworth School of Advanced Military Studies.

The same week that the letter was sent to the White House, a meeting was held at George Washington University between these same groups and top DOJ officials, including DOJ Civil Rights Division head Tom Perez. According to a report on this meeting by Neil Munro of theDaily Caller, several Muslim group leaders called for creating criminal and civil penalties for anyone advocating positions they deem offensive. Most notably in attendance were Sahar Aziz, an Egyptian-born American lawyer and Fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a Muslim advocacy group based in Michigan and Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), one of the largest Brotherhood front groups in America.

At the meeting, the Islamists lobbied for: Cutbacks in U.S. anti-terror training, limits on the power of terrorism investigators, changes in agent training manuals, and a legal declaration that criticism of Islam in the United States should be considered racial discrimination. Aziz said that the word “Muslim” has become “radicalized” and, once American criticism of Islam was silenced, the effect would be to “take (federal) money away from local police departments and fusion centers who are spying on all of us.” Magid asked Perez to change the federal government’s rules governing terror investigations, for more private meetings with top justice department officials, for the reeducation of FBI agents, and for more people to oppose criticism of Islam, which he labelled “religious bigotry and hate.”

Days later, after both the letter sent to the White House and the meeting with DOJ officials, Brennan responded by agreeing on the necessity for the “White House to immediately create an interagency Task Force to address the problem and bring the FBI and DHS into compliance with Islamic sensibilities” by removing personnel and products that these Brotherhood front organizations had deemed “biased, false, and highly offensive.” Brennan further stated that such a review was already underway by the administration in order to improve training for “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE). The process included combining “cultural awareness” with the CVE “training guidance and best practices” directives. It also meant putting out “a bulletin” to state, local, and tribal entities that “regularly leverage federal grants to fund CVE-related trainings” to provide guidance in their efforts.

“The FBI proceeded to undertake the very purging of documents that these Brotherhood front organizations had demanded and the Department of Defense followed shorty thereafter with a Soviet style purge of individuals along with disciplinary actions and re-education,” writes Stephen Coughlin. Coughlin goes on to state that, “the very information that senior leaders such as Brennan, Perez, and those within the Obama adminstration sought to purge from analysis and censor from discussion was the same information that has repeatedly provided indicators and warnings of threat activity when presented in national security forums.”

It is through the adminstration’s “Countering Violent Extremism” protocols and advisory councils that the purging of work product and personnel continues to this day. Thus, the Muslim Brotherhood through various front groups such as CAIR now control the domestic debate on countering terrorism through the CVE narrative, which in effect is a sophisticated information campaign executed through the skilled imposition of a disarming pseudo-reality. National security officials working within the DHS, FBI, CIA, and DOJ now look to Muslim Brotherhood groups like CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, and others for guidance domestically. It is through the CVE that the threat language of terrorist groups like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood was purged from our national security and law enforcement sectors.

Hence, it is because of the CVE and not in spite of it, that the threat vocabulary defining this enemy has been purged, leaving us defenseless and unable to counter actual terrorists in the War on Terror. “The most disturbing aspect of the CVE,” writes Coughlin, “will be the realization that national security elites beholden to the oath to support and defend the Constitution have been manipulated into taking active measures to suppress true threat analysis that is supposed to be undertaken in support of the primary intelligence mission: to know the enemy.”

As it stands today, America is losing the War on Terror as we are fighting the counter-terror war according to narratives that declare actual fact-based threat analysis unconstitutional on religious grounds yet allow actual terrorists to serve as the arbiters of our counter-ideology campaigns based on language requirements and legal doctrines that are not our own.


Video: Stephen Coughlin Gives “Red Pill Briefing” in Canada

E-BOOK RELEASE: “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere

3673405460Center for Security Policy, PRESS RELEASE September 22, 2015:

In this new monograph, adapted from Annex 1 of his superb recent book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy Stephen Coughlin explains what’s really behind the so-called ‘interfaith dialogue movement’ and how the Muslim Brotherhood has co-opted the well-meaning but misguided intentions of the Catholic Church in particular. Mr. Coughlin’s expertise in the nexus between Islamic Law (shariah) and Islamic terrorism informs his exposure of the manipulative Brotherhood strategy to use the interfaith dialogue arena as an opportunity to edge Catholics toward a dislocation of faith so as to pave the way for the insinuation of shariah into American faith communities and society in general.

At a time when Vatican policy seems to many to have become unmoored from the traditional doctrinal teachings of the Church in ways advanced by the permissive environment of the interfaith dialogue movement, including tolerance of anti-Constitutional, anti-Western, shariah-based Islamic principles as well as those who promote them, this publication hits home hard. As Mr. Coughlin points out, it is intellectually impossible to adhere faithfully to Church doctrine and yet grant acceptance to principles that are fundamentally opposed to such precepts at the same time. Only a dislocation of Catholic faith could allow such moral equivalence. Ultimately, as he argues, the objective of Islamic supremacists is the prioritization of interfaith relationships over advocacy on behalf of fellow Christians being slaughtered elsewhere by the co-religionists of their Muslim interfaith partners—in other words, the neutralization of the Catholic faith community as a serious obstacle to the encroachment of shariah.

In praise of this new Center publication, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said,

While the interfaith dialogue movement presents itself as a laudable effort to ‘bridge’ the distance between faiths, those more familiar with the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood know that the actual agenda of too many such efforts is, in fact, modeled after the well-known dictum of Sayyid Qutb, who candidly reminded Muslims that such a ‘bridge’ is ‘only so that the people of Jahiliyyah [society of unbelievers] may come over to Islam.

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series. “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere: The Catholic Church’s Case Study in Interfaith Delusion is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on Amazon.com.


Click here to purchase this newly released monograph in Kindle format.

Click here for a full PDF of the monograph.

Stephen Coughlin: Is Al-Qaeda Really the Moderate alternative to ISIS?

al_qaedaThe Glazov Gang, SEPTEMBER 12, 2015:

This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by Stephen Coughlin, the co-founder of UnconstrainedAnalytics.org.

He came on the show to discuss his new paper: Exploiting Ignorance in the Post Subversion Phase: Assessing “What ISIS Really Wants” in Light of the ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Narrative.”

He focuses on the question “Is Al-Qaeda Really the Moderate Alternative to ISIS?”, unveiling our self-destruction via our government’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ narrative.

Ex-Pentagon analyst: Terrorism “is truly a clear and present existential threat”

page-image (2)The Rebel, by Brian Lilley, Sep. 12, 2015:

I interviewed Stephen Coughlin, a former Pentagon Intelligence Analyst who says the West needs to wake up to the reality of the terror threat.

Coughlin, who will be speaking in Montreal on September 16 and Ottawa on September 17, says too often our political leaders are acting out of political considerations and ignoring the obvious facts in front of them.

Coughlin: Assessing “What ISIS Really Wants” in Light of the ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Narrative

Exploiting-Ignorance-RptUnconstrained Analytics, Aug. 4, 2015:

Stephen Couglin has written a new report, “Exploiting Ignorance in the Post Subversion Phase: Assessing “What ISIS Really Wants” in Light of the ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Narrative.”

In it, he analyzes The Atlantic article, “What ISIS Really Wants,” as well as the Foreign Policy article, “The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood.”

Coughlin says that the Atlantic article supports narratives that continue to justify the outsourcing of the production of America’s information requirements in support of the counterterror effort to non-U.S. actors, in this case Middle Eastern, in much the way that the Muslim Brotherhood controls the domestic debate through the “countering violent extremism” (CVE) narrative.

Cast as an effort to work with our partners in the Middle East to counter the burgeoning ISIS information juggernaut, the actual effect of “What ISIS Really Wants” is to further wrest control of the information requirements that drive America’s counterterror effort and keep them vested in non-U.S. actors.

Despite its earnest and facially neutral designation, the CVE is, in effect, a sophisticated information campaign executed through the skilled imposition of a disarming pseudoreality.

As the duty to know national security threats is subsumed in the Article VI requirement to “support and defend against all enemies,” the very willingness to outsource our information requirements constitutes, by itself, a national security breakdown of strategic proportions. As with the Muslim Brotherhood domestically, the outsourcing works itself through the CVE.

Read the Report:

Exploiting Ignorance in the Post Subversion Phase: Assessing “What ISIS Really Wants” in Light of the ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Narrative (pdf)


So who is Quintan Wiktorowicz? A former assistant professor of international studies at Rhodes College,57 Wiktorowicz became the White House Senior Director for Community Partnerships on the National Security Staff under the Obama administration.58 Wiktorowicz helped devise the administration’s new “countering violent extremism” strategy,59 which is based on his notion of why people become extremists60 premised on “social movement theory.”61

In 2011, Wiktorowicz was involved, as were McCants and Braniff, in the administration’s policy of purging law enforcement training materials that addressed the role of Islam and jihad in the counterterror effort.62

While no longer in the administration, Wiktorowicz spoke of the great danger posed by ISIS in October 2014, when addressing the need to outsource our information requirements and counter-ideology efforts to Muslim organizations abroad. Outsourcing this capability to non-U.S. entities is necessary, Wiktorowicz reasoned, because it violates the First Amendment for American analysts to analyze and counter ISIS (also called ISIL) based on the Islamic doctrines that unquestionably animate that group as well as al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood:

While the government has tried to counter terrorist propaganda, it cannot directly address the warped religious interpretations of groups like ISIL because of the constitutional separation of church and state. U.S. officials are prohibited from engaging in debates about Islam, and as a result will need to rely on partners in the Muslim world for this part of the ideological struggle.63

It is important to restate what Wiktorowicz said to draw out what it means:

1. Because the First Amendment prohibits U.S. officials and analysts from even discussing ISIS doctrines understood to be based on Islamic principles;

2. The Obama administration advances the policy that the United States turn national security issues concerning clear and present dangers to America over to third party nations beholden to Islamic principles;

3. Thus eviscerating the Article VI duty to undertake direct threat analysis in furtherance of “supporting and defending the Constitution against ALL enemies;” Those driving today’s “quietism” narrative based their reasoning not on Islamic sources but rather on Western behavioral models. Exploiting Ignorance in the Post Subversion

4. Thereby subordinating U.S. national security to whatever third-party nations and entities are willing to support based on non-U.S. interests and objectives that may or may not be friendly to America or supportive of America’s interests and objectives.

First, there is no such First Amendment bar to undertaking competent threat analysis. Second, Wiktorowicz is not an attorney. And yet this novel legal theory directly undermines the Article VI requirement to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies.”

Could Wiktorowicz be relying on the Brotherhood for his legal reasoning? On 18 December 2014, the Brotherhood64 wrote to Lisa O. Monaco, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Deputy National Security Advisor, demanding that the “White House should immediately issue guidance to address impacts on religious exercise, freedom of expression and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause,” including:

• Prohibit federal employees from using or promoting CVE training and CVE training materials that single out expressive conduct, including through alleged indicators or predictors of violent extremism or “radicalization” that focus on patterns of religious observance, political activism or religious beliefs.

• Prohibit federal employees from implementing any program, directly or indirectly, that has the effect of defining participants by reference to religion.65

Contrasting his recognition of the lethal effectiveness of ISIS’s threat doctrine with a ridiculous First Amendment theory, Wiktorowicz—as an immediate consequence of that prohibition—manufactures a follow-on requirement to outsource critical information requirements to third-party state actors beholden to shariah standards.

Yet, if Wiktorowicz held to his own rules, how could he state that ISIS’s interpretations of Islam are “warped” and use that conclusion to justify a decision to outsource our information requirements?

Beyond this, if what Wiktorowicz said on the prohibition and subsequent outsourcing of intelligence requirements is true, then the duty to support and defend the Constitution is necessarily subordinated to whatever third-party state actors are willing to provide in light of shariah considerations as understood by Wahhabis. This effectively subordinates America’s national security to shariah considerations. Wiktorowicz continues:

Not enough resources are being devoted to the counter-ideology component of the administration’s strategy. The long war is the war against violent ideologies and there hasn’t been the resource investment since 9/11.66

If what Wiktorowicz said on the prohibition and subsequent outsourcing of intelligence requirements is true, then the duty to support and defend the Constitution is necessarily subordinated to whatever third-party state actors are willing to provide in light of shariah considerations as understood by Wahhabis.

The former White House counterterror strategist went on to say that “as a result of this and other factors, we’re seeing the reincarnation of al Qaeda as ISIL in Iraq and Syria.”67

In effect, Wiktorowicz attributes the rise of al-Qaeda to our failure to counter the very ideology the CVE prohibited the counterterror community from discussing on the ridiculous claim that it violates the First Amendment. It is through the CVE that the threat language of groups like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood was purged from our national security and law enforcement sectors.

Hence, it is because of the CVE and not in spite of it that the threat vocabulary defining this enemy has been purged, leaving us defenseless and unable to counter ISIS in the information battlespace or, it seems, anywhere else.

How does one allocate resources to counter an ideology that one is not allowed to discuss?68 For Wiktorowicz, the solution is obvious: the Obama administration should increase resources to the counter-ideology effort through the funding of partners in the Muslim world “who can push back against the ideology.”69 This “push back” should be understood in the context of Wiktorowicz’s counterterror construct, which holds, among other things, that the First Amendment would likewise bar due diligence and quality assurance assessments of our “partners’” counter-ideology efforts regarding any activities that involve Islam. This is the context in which we should consider the role that think tanks like the Brookings Doha Center may be playing, as reflected in its sub-rosa influence on the Atlantic article. Enter Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.


When validated, the most disturbing aspect of the CVE will be the realization that national security elites beholden to the oath to support and defend the Constitution have been manipulated into taking active measures to suppress true threat analysis that is supposed to be undertaken in support of the primary intelligence mission: to know the enemy. Such are the consequences of infantilized thinking.

As it stands, America is fighting the counterterror war according to narratives that declare actual fact-based threat analysis unconstitutional on religious grounds yet allow imams abroad to serve as the arbiters of our counter-ideology campaigns based on language requirements and legal doctrines that are not our own.

Now, with Congress set to vote to institutionalize the CVE in the national security establishment, it is time to ask whether this is the wisest decision.


Also see:

National Security Expert Slams Hillary’s ‘Assault’ On Free Speech

Hillary Clinton (D-NY) places her hand over her heart during the National Anthem at the 30th annual Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola, Iowa, in this September 16, 2007 file photo. (REUTERS/Joshua Lott/Files)

Hillary Clinton (D-NY) places her hand over her heart during the National Anthem at the 30th annual Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola, Iowa, in this September 16, 2007 file photo. (REUTERS/Joshua Lott/Files)

Daily Caller, by Rachel Stoltzfoos, July 18, 2015:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton put her willingness to defend the Constitution in serious doubt when she promised Islamic countries the United States government would intimidate Americans who violate their free speech code, national security expert Stephen Coughlin told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

As Secretary of State, Clinton promised an international Islamic organization in 2011 that the United States government would “use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” to intimidate Americans who improperly criticize Islam or Muhammad.

“An official of the United States, in an official communiqué, went to a foreign land to commit to a foreign leader that the United States Government would engage in the extra-legal practice of intimidating American citizens in the exercise of what is otherwise their protected free speech rights under the First Amendment,” Coughlin told TheDCNF.

Coughlin discusses the move in his recently published book, “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad,” and told TheDCNF it casts a pall on her record as secretary of state.

“If her willingness to sell out Americans First Amendment rights to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation by categorizing as ‘hate speech’ anything that is deemed offensive to Islam is any indication, she may be the least qualified candidate to support and defend the Constitution,” he said.

Coughlin’s an attorney, decorated intelligence officer and expert on Islamic law and terrorism who consulted the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff for about a decade following 9/11, before the Muslim Brotherhood allegedly convinced the White House to ban him and “outlaw” his briefings.

He cites Clinton’s 2011 visit to Turkey and her cooperation with the OIC in his book as one example of how muslim ideologists wield influence in the “highest reaches” of the U.S. government.

The Clinton campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

The OIC is the second-largest intergovernmental organization after the U.N., consisting of 57 states that identify as “the collective voice of the Muslim world.”

After she helped the OIC secure passage of U.N. resolution 16/18, “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief,” Clinton promised the U.S. would take what steps it could to curb speech critical of Islam.

“And together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression, and we are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs,” she said in an address following the resolution’s passage.

“We also understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy,” she added. “So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel they have the support to do what we abhor.”

The resolution condemns “any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media.”

Coughlin argues in his book it’s part of a deliberate OIC-led effort to bring the U.S. and other countries in line with Muslim speech standards, first by condemning and eventually criminalizing unwanted speech such as depictions of Muhammad.

“Over the last few years, major left wing and Islamists organizations have been working diligently to reframe free speech in an oppositional narrative that distinguishes sanctioned speech, designated free speech, from hate speech in a long term campaign to brand nonconforming speech as hate speech that is at first to be ridiculed and then criminalized,” he told TheDCNF.



BOOK RELEASE: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech

Michael Savage Interviews ‘Catastrophic Failure’ Author Stephen Coughlin


In light of the recent comments by the President on defeating the enemy’s ideology, Stephen Coughlin reminds us how it was Obama who has played a major role in blinding us to that ideology by, among other things, adopting Quintan Wiktorowicz’s “Countering Violent Extremism” narrative and empowering the Muslim Brotherhood. Listen and find out how and when the wrong headed “Moderate Muslim Brotherhood” narrative was adopted.

Also see:

Stephen Coughlin’s “Red Pill” Q&A part 1

red pill brief 2

Published on Jun 25, 2015 by Vlad Tepes

This is the first part of the question and answer session after Stephen Coughlin’s Red Pill brief given in Austria in May 2015


For the rest of the briefing go HERE

Blindfolded America

Crisis Magazine, by Wiliam Kilpatrick, June 19. 2015:

If you’ve ever noticed that U.S. policy in regard to the war on terror is confused, you’ll appreciate Stephen Coughlin’s just released book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.

The confusion is no accident, says Coughlin, but is the result of a deliberate Muslim Brotherhood plan to influence decision-making at the highest levels of the government and the military. Coughlin is an attorney, intelligence officer, and an expert on Islamic law and ideology. He is well-known for his “Red Pill” briefings to the security and defense establishments and to members of Congress. The “Red Pill” is a reference to the pill which allowed the characters in The Matrix to see reality as it is and to leave behind the false virtual reality that had been constructed for them.

Coughlin discusses the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of the government, the military, the security establishment, transnational bodies, and even the interfaith community. Just as importantly he explains the overall strategy which guides the Muslim Brotherhood’s various influence operations. A major component of the strategy is deception. Thus, in America, Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups—who are anything but moderate—present themselves as the moderate experts on Islam who possess the knowledge to counter the radicals.

Of course, they don’t advertise themselves as the Muslim Brotherhood. But when American security agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security consult with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, or a dozen other such groups, they are in effect dealing with the Brotherhood. The connections between these organizations and the Brotherhood are well-established, but for various reasons our agencies ignore the evidence. One reason is that many in the government believe that the Muslim Brotherhood—the progenitor of almost all terrorist groups—is genuinely moderate. Another reason is that the Brotherhood-linked groups are practically the only game in town. They are well-organized, well-funded, and have been ingratiating themselves with successive administrations for decades.

coughlin-coverWhatever the reason, these are the groups our security leaders turn to for advice. And, according to Coughlin, it’s not just input that is sought, but also direction. In effect, he says, we have outsourced our understanding of Islam to groups who do not have the best interests of America at heart. The other side of the coin is that the advice of other competent experts is ignored. When the advice of the Muslim experts contradicts the advice of non-Muslim experts, the Muslim advice is favored and the non-Muslim expert might well find himself out of a job.

Why does Muslim expert advice consistently trump non-Muslim expert advice? According to Coughlin, the security-intelligence establishment is in thrall to the same multicultural and relativist dogmas that afflict the rest of us. One of these dogmas, elaborated in Edward Said’s 1978 book Orientalism, is that no culture can ever explain another culture. Each culture is the final arbiter of its own meaning. For an outside culture to try to explain Islam is therefore tantamount to an act of cultural imperialism. Thus, says Coughlin, Muslim cultural experts are not even required to provide evidence for their assertions: “Often, all that is required to halt an inquiry or analysis are the words, ‘Islam does not stand for this’ from a cultural expert.”

The upshot, says Coughlin, is that many of our critical decisions on homeland security and on military and foreign policy are guided by groups whose main objective is to turn all societies into Islamic societies.

According to Coughlin, a prime instance of a Muslim Brotherhood influence operation occurred in 2012, when the White House purged more than one thousand documents and presentations from counterterror training programs for the FBI and other agencies. This was done in response to a letter to John Brennan, then Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. The letter, which was signed by dozens of leaders of Muslim activist groups, complained about the “use of biased, false, and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.” After the FBI training program was made Islam-compliant, the Department of Defense followed with what Coughlin describes as a “Soviet-style purge of individuals along with disciplinary actions and re-education.”

Coughlin contends that a similar kowtowing to Islamic interests has undermined our war efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Rules of engagement that subordinate the safety of our troops to the overriding principles of “respect for Islam” have a profoundly demoralizing effect on soldiers and make them think twice about a career in the Army. Coughlin cites a survey of West Point graduates showing that nearly half of young officers think the current military leadership is weak, while 78 percent think that the high exit rate of good officers threatens national security.

According to Coughlin, such demoralization is among the chief aims of Islamic strategists. “The Islamic way of war,” he writes, “places substantial effort on the preparation stage, the object of which is to induce a collapse of faith in the cultural, political and religious institutions underpinning the target.” As an example of this strategy he cites The Quranic Doctrine of War, a book by Pakistani Brigadier General S.K. Malik. Malik stressed that the chief effort prior to actual warfare should be to “dislocate” the enemies’ faith:

To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy [it] is essential in the ultimate analysis to dislocate his faith. An invincible faith is immune to terror. A weak faith offers inroads to terror…. Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely cutting lines of communication or depriving it of its routes to withdraw. It is basically related to the strength or weakness of the human soul. It can be instilled only if the opponent’s faith is destroyed.

Coughlin observes that the object of jihad, of both the stealth and armed variety, is the destruction of faith. Therefore, “jihad is primarily understood in terms of spiritual war … a form of warfare that the Pentagon is not disposed to recognize.”

There is, however, one organization that should be disposed to recognize spiritual warfare. Unfortunately, says Coughlin, the Church has proved no better at recognizing and resisting Islamic influence operations than the government and the military. The appendix to his book contains a sixty-three-page chapter titled “Interfaith Outreach.” While Coughlin’s main concern is the undermining of national security, he maintains that Islamic activist groups have taken the entire culture as their target. In “Interfaith Outreach,” he discusses the Muslim Brotherhood attempt to subvert the interfaith community—a process that parallels the penetration of the military and is likewise intended to result in a “dislocation of faith.”

Coughlin focuses in particular on the interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Catholics. Like the security establishment’s “dialogue” with Muslim representatives, the interfaith dialogue, he claims, is rigged to discourage any critical analysis of Islam. One of the principles that guides the dialogue process is that the participants “speak in a way that people of that religion can affirm as accurate.” This, of course, is simply an extension of Said’s contention that one culture has no business explaining another culture. It means that the Catholic dialogue participants should defer to Islam’s interpretation of Islam. Thus, if a Catholic had the temerity to bring up the subject of Islamic violence, it would be enough for his Muslim counterpart to state that Islam has nothing to do with violence, and perhaps to recite a couple of verses from the Koran, and that would be that.

Full and frank discussion is further inhibited by an overarching emphasis on trust and friendship. The ground rules stipulate that “dialogue must take place in an atmosphere of mutual trust.Moreover, to quote from Interfaith Dialogue: A Guide for Muslims, dialogue partners must pledge “to remain committed to being friends when the world would separate us from one another.” That sounds nice, but isn’t there a danger that the bonds of friendship might get in the way of objectivity? That friendship might actually undermine objectivity? Thus, writes Coughlin, “persons who undertake a reasonable effort … [of] performing a competent assessment of the ‘others’ religion could be characterized as lacking the requisite trust….” Too deep an inquiry might bring accusations that one is uncharitable, intolerant or Islamophobic. So, in order “to remain committed to being friends,” dialoguers tend to avoid the crucial questions in favor of discussing the common ground between Muslims and Christians.

Read more

Stephen Coughlin’s “Red Pill” Brief

red pill brief
Maj. Stephen Coughlin is a retired U.S. Army officer and one of the foremost experts on Islamic law in the United States. For years he was well-known inside the Beltway for his “Red Pill” briefings of military commanders and defense officials on the topics of jihad and sharia. He was so effective in his work that the Muslim Brotherhood successfully arranged to have him pushed out of the Pentagon.

More recently, he is the author of Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, which incorporates material from the “Red Pill” brief, as well as much additional material on the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of Western governments, transnational bodies, NGOs, and the “interfaith” industry.

The videos below are of a “Red Pill” briefing Maj. Coughlin gave to the Wiener Akademikerbund on May 23 under the auspices of Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa, following his participation with the team at the OSCE conference in Vienna.

Recorded by Henrik Ræder Clausen and edited by Vlad Tepes (h/t Gates of Vienna)


More with Stephen Coughlin:

Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad

1710871446Secure Freedom Radio, June 10, 2015: With Stephen Coughlin

STEPHEN COUGHLIN, author of “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in Face of Jihad”:


  • The Islamic law of the land: Shariah
  • The non-kinetic battle space of information operations
  • Political, military, legal, and religious arms of Shariah
  • Defining “Jihad”


  • Western misconceptions of the term “jihad”
  • The Muslim Brotherhoods explicit purpose in America
  • David Shipler’s Freedom of Speech
  • An Islamist alignment with the Left


  • Examining the relationship between the Pentagon and the Islamic Society of North America
  • The true reach of Muslim Brotherhood agents and affiliates within the US government
  • What does it mean if “you don’t know your enemy?”


  • State Department mantra that “ISIS isn’t Islamic”
  • U.N. Resolution 1618, Hillary Clinton, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
  • Understanding the Interfaith Movement as a cultural, Marxist organization
  • The Muslim Brotherhood’s stealth jihad within the US

“Protocols of the Elders of …Islam”, Really?

512R2aJ0iLLFormer New York Times reporter David K. Shipler’s new book, “Freedom of Speech: Mightier Than the Sword” has a chapter called “Protocols of the Elders of Islam” in which he impugns the work of Stephen Coughlin on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Memorandum of Understanding. You really have to hear this:

Frank Gaffney and Stephen Coughlin discuss on Secure Freedom Radio:

LISTEN: A leading national security advisor and Islamic law expert explains how and why America is losing to jihadists

Major Stephen Coughlin

Major Stephen Coughlin

The Blaze, by Benjamin Weingarten, April 13, 2015:

Major Stephen Coughlin (Ret.), a decorated intelligence officer known as the Pentagon’s leading expert on Islamic law has authored a forthcoming book, “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of the Jihad,” that serves as a damning indictment of America’s national security establishment in the face of the global jihad, and provides a chilling message to the American people.

We had the opportunity to discuss Coughlin’s new book in a wide-ranging interview that you can find below.


During our discussion, Coughlin goes into great depth on the thesis of his book, providing keen insights into the nature and doctrinal basis of the threat posed by Islamic supremacists, America’s conscious purging of the very lexicon necessary to describe the nature of the threat on its own terms, and as a result of postmodernism, political correctness and the pervasiveness of what Coughlin describes as culturally Marxist narratives — along with the gentle prodding of Muslim Brotherhood influences on our media and other core institutions — the ignorance, incoherence and willful blindness of America’s “stupid” national security establishment.

The end result that Coughlin sees is a completely compromised security situation in which America is able to win in military engagements, while completely losing — to the degree to which it is even fighting — on the ideological warfare battleground where the Muslim Brotherhood and its Western proxies devote a significant amount of their efforts.

This civilizational jihad effort, and Western ignorance of principles like jihad, abrogation and dawah, which Coughlin describes during our interview, evidences itself in everything from what Coughlin sees as the disastrous policy of Countering Violent Extremism (CVE), to the Fort Hood shooting, to Iranian nuclear negotiations, which we examine through the lens of the 7th century Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

Below are several of the more critical portions of our interview, but for those concerned about the state of national security as it relates to the global jihad, we urge you to listen to the conversation in full.

The Three Words the National Security Establishment Won’t Use Essential to Understanding the Enemy


How the Muslim Brotherhood is Working Its Way Towards Civilizational Jihad in America


How CVE Supports the Postmodernist Narrative, and Deems Veterans Returning from War a Threat


The Derelection of Duty of America’s National Security Establishment


How Ignorance of Islam Deceives Our National Security Leaders to Our Detriment


What a 7th Century Treaty Tells Us About the Iran Nuclear “Deal”


How Left Wing Narratives Have Created a “Stupid” National Security Establishment and Aided the Jihad