Diane Feinstein says the unsayable

2169852162

Center For Security Policy, By Frank Gaffney:

Yesterday was a red letter day – or perhaps it should be called an Islamic green letter one – for U.S. intelligence.  For the first time I can recall, the top legislator on a congressional oversight committee has actually made clear what motivates our enemies in what used to be called euphemistically the “War on Terror,” and that Team Obama now dubs even more opaquely as the effort to “counter violent extremism.”

This breakthrough came in the course of a joint appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union” by the chairpersons of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), respectively. The media seized on the ostensibly big news out of their remarks: bipartisan agreement that the United States is at greater risk of terrorist attack today than two years ago.

But important, ominous and accurate as that assessment is, it wasn’t the most important point made by these two respected lawmakers. Instead, it was Sen. Feinstein’s observation in response to a question about what causes the “hatred” that makes our situation more perilous:

“There is a real displaced aggression in this very fundamentalist jihadist Islamic community, and that is that the West is responsible for everything that goes wrong and that the only thing that’s going to solve this is Islamic shariah law.”

What makes this incontrovertible statement so noteworthy?  It is the fact that the intelligence community is not allowed to say what Sen. Feinstein did.  Under Obama administration guidelines, for intelligence officers – and for that matter, law enforcement, Homeland Security and military personnel – to talk about Islamic jihadism and shariah as the motivation for terrorism can be a career-ending offense.

For example, on May 10, 2012, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, used a press conference to denounce a highly decorated and up-and-coming Army officer, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, for teaching an elective course at the Joint Forces Staff College using an approved curriculum.  According to Gen. Dempsey, what prompted this extraordinary action was that a student – who it turns out had not actually been enrolled in Col. Dooley’s class – “was concerned that the course was objectionable and that it was counter to our values…our appreciation for religious freedom and cultural awareness. And the young man who brought it to my attention was absolutely right. It’s totally objectionable.”

At the core of what was so “totally objectionable” is the fact that students were exposed to information that made plain the gravity of the threat of which Sen. Feinstein warned: the supremacist, totalitarian Islamic doctrine of shariah and the jihad or holy war it obliges adherents to perform.  Col. Dooley’s promising career was cut short and the files of his institution and that of the rest of the national security community have been purged of all such information deemed by unidentified subject matters experts engaged for the purpose to be “counter to our values.”

Sen. Feinstein’s forthright declaration is particularly gratifying as I had an opportunity to discuss the danger posed by shariah with her in the course of testimony I provided the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 24, 2013 at the invitation of her colleague, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).  In the course of making the case for keeping the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay open, I observed:

“We have been obliged to go to war because it was thrust upon us. And, if we are to prevail in this conflict, we must understand the nature of the enemies with whom we are at war. They are shariah-adherent jihadists who believe, in accordance with that doctrine, that it is God’s will that they destroy our way of life and subjugate us to theirs.”

At the time, Sen. Feinstein strongly disagreed with my view that shariah’s dictates make it impossible safely to release its adherents from Gitmo or, alternatively, to incarcerate them instead in this country – where they might exploit rights foolishly conferred upon them to secure their freedom and wage jihad here.  I hope that the clarity she expressed Sunday about the inexorable nature of the shariah doctrine and the supremacist hatred it impels will cause the senior senator from California both to insist that such insights are once again inculcated in those responsible for our security and to reconsider her support for closing Guantanamo Bay.

 

Problems in the U.S. Military: Denying Islam’s Role in Terror

The U.S. Army seems to have succumbed to PC-Islamist sensitivities. It has issued a special handbook for soldiers that appears to justify jihad as "communal military defense … when [Muslims] are threatened or under attack." In addition, U.S. servicewomen have been urged to don head scarves when interacting with Afghan locals while all soldiers are warned to "respect Islam" in order to prevent violence there.

The U.S. Army seems to have succumbed to PC-Islamist sensitivities. It has issued a special handbook for soldiers that appears to justify jihad as “communal military defense … when [Muslims] are threatened or under attack.” In addition, U.S. servicewomen have been urged to don head scarves when interacting with Afghan locals while all soldiers are warned to “respect Islam” in order to prevent violence there.

by David J. Rusin
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2013 (view PDF)

Editors’ note: This article discusses many public figures in the context of the positions they held in December 2012 when the article was submitted. There has been much turnover in government and military posts since then, but the problems caused by political correctness remain despite the changes in personnel.

As U.S. service members risk their lives to combat violent jihadists abroad, military leaders, both uniformed and civilian, capitulate to stealth jihadists at home. By bending to Islamists’ appeals for religious sensitivity, these leaders ignore the most crucial lesson of the Fort Hood massacre: Political correctness can kill.

The War On Training

A key battleground in the war of ideas between Islamists and the West is military training because Islamists seek to suppress knowledge of their beliefs and goals.[1] This campaign hit high gear in 2011 when journalist Spencer Ackerman of Wired launched a series of articles documenting “offensive” training employed by various government agencies. He highlighted, among others, FBI materials stating that Islamic doctrine calls for war against non-Muslims and equating greater religious devotion with the potential for violence.[2]

On October 19, 2011, dozens of Muslim groups, many Islamist in nature, signed a letter to John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s counterterrorism advisor, with a copy to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, demanding that the administration “purge … biased materials” and jettison “bigoted trainers.”[3]However, Panetta’s Department of Defense was already on the case. Five days prior, Jose Mayorga, deputy assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, had directed the Joint Staff to compile information on the “current processes used to vet CVE [countering violent extremism] trainers.”[4]

The Islamists’ most notable scalp to date—presented to them by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army general Martin Dempsey—is that of Matthew Dooley, a decorated Army lieutenant colonel who had taught at the Joint Forces Staff College of the National Defense University.[5] At issue was Dooley’s courseon Islam and Islamic radicalism during which he spoke of Islam as an ideology, not just a faith, and war-gamed provocative scenarios in which it would be confronted as such.[6]

A colonel enrolled in the class complained to his superiors, leading to the course’s suspension in April 2012.[7] On May 10, Wired published course materials focusing on a handful of slides conjecturing about “total war” and taking the conflict to civilians, but which also included a disclaimer that the specific counter-jihad model was meant “to generate dynamic discussion and thought” and did not constitute government policy.[8] According to The Washington Times, Dooley’s attorneys at the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) have maintained that “the discussion about all-out war … was conducted by a guest speaker. It involved theoretical ‘out of the box’ thinking on what happens if Islamic extremists commandeer Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and begin destroying U.S. cities: How does the U.S. respond?”[9]

External lecturers in the class were a major target of Wired, which highlighted their politically incorrect statements such as that the Crusades had been initiated after centuries of Muslim incursions and that Islamists see the fall of Arab regimes as stepping stones to global dominance.[10] Ironically, one maligned guest speaker, Stephen Coughlin, had been fired from his post with the Joint Staff years earlier because of his own controversial work on Islamic warfare.[11]

Though one could debate whether aspects of Dooley’s approach were unbalanced, the military’s reaction surely was. Hours after the Wired exposé appeared, Dempsey condemned the class at a news conference.[12] “It was just totally objectionable, against our values, and it wasn’t academically sound,” he said, adding that Dooley, referred to as “the individual,” was no longer teaching. Soon Dooley was ordered removed “for cause,” and his superiors produced a negative officer evaluation report, derailing his career.[13] On November 26, Ackerman relayed that Dooley had been transferred to a “bureaucratic backwater.”[14]

TMLC lawyers argue that the military chose to “throw him under the bus in public” without ever privately instructing Dooley to tweak the course’s content.[15] The center further asserts that Dempsey’s words prejudiced the investigation, that the syllabus had been approved, and that university policies guarantee the right to academic expression “free of limitations, restraints, or coercion by the university or external environment.”[16] Two congressmen also objected to what they saw as excessive punishment;[17] in response, the Pentagon issued a report defending Dooley’s dismissal on the basis that the class “did not meet appropriate academic standards” and was “overtly negative with respect to Islam.”[18] According to a TMLC press release, the military’s primary goal was to appease Islamists and make an example out of Dooley, so others “will refrain from telling the truth about Islam or confronting the difficult strategic challenges facing our nation for fear of jeopardizing their professional careers.”[19]

Read more at Middle East Forum

 

The Threat Doctrine that Cries ‘Blasphemy’

By Janet Levy:

For the past 25 years, the Muslim Brotherhood in North America has been pursuing a comprehensive strategy to control what non-Muslims know about Islam.  This multi-pronged threat doctrine seeks to prohibit open discussion and to abridge free speech.  It also seeks to curtail education and training given to the military, law enforcement, intelligence, and government about the true nature of Islam.  Overall, the Brotherhood’s agenda seeks to block a fair and critical appraisal of Islamic doctrine, pursue a stealth civilizational jihad against the West, and, ultimately, render us impotent to defend ourselves.

A review of the Brotherhood’s progress in this effort over the past two decades presents a chilling picture of the extent to which our safety and way of life have been compromised.  It serves as a wake-up call for action now.

Background

The General Strategic Plan for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America, written and adopted in 1987, established the grand mission for Muslims as a mandatory civilizational jihad against the West, led and directed by the Brotherhood.  The stated goal was to establish Islam as “victorious over all other religions.”  Specific steps were laid out in the document to bring about a global Islamic state under sharia, or Islamic doctrine.

The Brotherhood’s strategic plan is buttressed by the Islamic doctrine of al wala wa al bara, which requires Muslims to feel enmity toward non-Muslims (upheld by taqiyya, or deception) and exhibit loyalty to the umma, or the Muslim community.  It embodies the stealth principles of Sun Tzu’s ancient Chinese war doctrine: “[s]ubduing an enemy without force is best” and “[a]ll warfare is based on deception.”

Stopping military and government training

To control what is known about Islam and to block education and training to law enforcement and government, the Muslim Brotherhood has developed well-placed inside-influence operators who wield considerable power with high-level officials and can set policy.

For example, in 2008, Stephen Coughlin, a lawyer and top expert on Islamic doctrine, was cashiered as a government contractor for the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon.  Coughlin had lectured at the Navy War College and the Marine Corp War College, as well as briefed members of Congress, senior staff at the Department of Defense, government officials, and law enforcement and intelligence officers.  His departure was an orchestrated campaign undertaken by an Egyptian-American Muslim, Hesham Islam, who, after 20 years in the U.S. Navy, had become a senior adviser and admired confidant to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England.

Islam was welcomed into England’s inner circle despite his close ties to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood front group and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas terrorist funding trial.  Islam regularly attended ISNA events and hosted the organization at the Pentagon.  From his position as a well-placed insider, Islam was able to use his relationship with the deputy secretary to label Coughlin “extreme” and “a Christian zealot with a poison pen,” even though the veracity and scholarship of Coughlin’s lectures were deemed impeccable throughout his chain of command.  Eventually, Islam succeeded in having Coughlin removed, effectively silencing him and removing the benefit of Coughlin’s expertise for military personnel.

A more recent instance of blocking military and government officials from learning the truth about Islamic doctrine was the removal from training responsibilities of Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley from the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, VA.  Although Dooley’s course materials on radical Islam had been previously approved, they were recast as “offensive to Muslims” and critical of Islam after complaints came to the White House from various Islamic influence groups.

The complaining groups included two unindicted co-conspirators in the Hamas funding trial — ISNA, again, and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).  Dooley was publicly excoriated, fired as an instructor, and given a negative evaluation, placing the future of his military career in jeopardy.  Finally, all materials critical of Islam were scrubbed from military training, even though much of the training materials referenced Islamic texts themselves,  as well as commentary from highly esteemed Muslim clerics.

In this way, for lack of adequate training and education, our military officers and other government employees are ultimately rendered impotent to fight the enemy, unaware of the threat to national security posed by Islam.

Invoking “Islamophobia” and “Blasphemy”

Another key tactic cited in the Brotherhood’s strategic plan is to prevent infidels from learning the truth about Islam by controlling how Islamic doctrine is discussed and the language used to describe Islam and Muslims.  This method is effectively aided by the West’s culture of multiculturalism, in which charges of prejudice and racism — like “Islamophobia” — trump all offenses.

The all too convenient charge of “Islamophobia” has been proclaimed when non-Muslims have critically evaluated the tenets of Islam, denounced terrorist activities, called attention to inappropriate or threatening behavior, denied requests for accommodations beyond what is customary and normal, depicted Mohammed in unflattering ways, or even quoted directly from Islamic scriptures.  This dissembling or disingenuous focus on “Islamophobia,” when none exists in the U.S. (according to an FBI study on religious hate crimes), obfuscates the real danger of jihad and Islamic supremacism.  It lulls the general populace and renders it helpless to defend itself against the real Islamic threat.

A parallel move, used when actual Islamic terrorist actions have been taken, is to shift the blame for those actions onto non-Muslims.  Thus, those who have expressed negative views of Islam and Muslims and who have cast suspicions about Muslims’ activities are deemed culpable for Islamic terrorism.  Further, Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA issue veiled threats that the targeting and misrepresentation of Muslims will lead to distrust within Muslim communities and foster an unwillingness to cooperate with authorities to strengthen homeland security.

A related diversionary tactic is to blame jihadist acts on social or economic problems such as poverty, lack of opportunity, and bias against Muslims.  In effect, the argument goes, Islamic terrorism is being manufactured by Islamophobia or poverty and has nothing to do with Islam.  The West is blamed for its insensitivity to Islam, and the need for formalized measures or legislation is advanced to ensure that infidels aren’t harmed further by violent reactions when Muslims legitimately feel disrespected.  Legislation such as the Istanbul Process, the collection of anti-blasphemy laws passed by the U.N., is presented as a necessary option under the guise of condemning insults to religion in general.  Yet the real intent is to eliminate any criticism of Islam, as is made obvious by the regular and public condemnation of Christians and Jews by Muslims who populate the internet with videos calling for jihad against infidels.

Advancing false theories

Another arrow in the quiver of Muslim tactics is to seize control of the education of military and government employees about Islamic doctrine.  Muslim Brotherhood organizations do this by arguing that non-Muslims are unequipped to teach Islam and that it must properly be taught by Muslims.  As a result, CAIR has provided Muslim sensitivity training for the FBI, U.S. Armed Forces, state and local law enforcement agencies, and others, all of it under the guise of fostering a “better relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim community.”  Yet at the same time, the Brotherhood’s New York chapter distributed posters declaring, “Build a Wall of Resistance, Don’t Talk to the F.B.I.” and advised Muslims that they are the victims of anti-Muslim bias.

Incredibly, Muslim Brotherhood operatives, such as Louay Safi, have even taught the tenets of Islam to American troops deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, including a course on the “Theology of Islam” at Fort Hood in Texas.  Following Major Nidal Hasan’s 2009 attack on Fort Hood in which he murdered 13 people, Safi blamed the violent outburst on the “demonization of marginalized groups,” meaning Muslims.

Another Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohammed Magid, president of ISNA, was appointed in 2011 by Obama to serve at the Department of Homeland Security.  His responsibilities have included the training and advising of personnel affiliated with the FBI and other government agencies.  Magid has characterized any criticism of Islam as “religious bigotry and hate” and been responsible for purging government-training materials critical of Islam.

Read more at American Thinker

Muslims Offended—Soldier’s Career Destroyed—Official Army Records Show Loss to Nation

Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Matthew Dooley

Thomas More Law Center:

ANN ARBOR, MI – During a Pentagon press conference on May 10, 2012, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly excoriated Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Matthew Dooley, a 1994 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and a highly decorated combat veteran.  His reason: The course on Islamic Radicalism which LTC Dooley was teaching at the Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC) of the National Defense University was offensive to Muslims.

General Dempsey characterized LTC Dooley’s course as “totally objectionable,” and ordered all material offensive to Islam scrubbed from military professional education within the JFSC and elsewhere. But that’s not all.  LTC Dooley was fired from his instructor position and given an ordered negative Officer Evaluation Report (OER) — the death-knell for a military career.

The actions against LTC Dooley follow a letter to the Department of Defense dated October 19, 2011 signed by 57 Muslim organizations demanding that all training materials offensive to Islam and Muslims be purged and the trainers disciplined.

A review of LTC Dooley’s OERs going back several years, including his OER as an instructor with JFSC, paint a picture of an outstanding officer with unlimited potential:

  • “LTC Matt Dooley’s performance is outstanding and he is clearly the best of our new instructors assigned to the JFSC faculty over the last six months. . . . A must select for battalion command. . . .  LTC Dooley possesses unlimited potential to serve in positions of much higher authority.”
  • “MAJ Dooley is unquestionably among the most dedicated and hard working officers I have ever known.…  Unsurpassed potential for future promotion and service.”
  • “Our soldiers deserve his leadership.”
  • “This officer possesses unlimited potential for future assignments.  He must be promoted ahead of his peers and selected for Battalion/Squadron Command at first opportunity.”
  • “Superb performance.”
  • “Matt is a consummate professional with unlimited potential;”

Click here for detailed excerpts from LTC Dooley’s Officer Evaluation Reports

The Thomas More Law Center, a national nonprofit public interest law firm, based in Ann, Arbor, Michigan, represents LTC Dooley. The Law Center decided to disclose excerpts from five of LTC Dooley’s previous Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) in order to give the public an idea of the loss to the Army and our Nation caused by the actions taken against LTC Dooley.

What happened to LTC Dooley is more than a personal miscarriage of justice.  When instructors are prohibited from teaching military officers about the true threat posed by Islamic Radicalism, it is a threat to our national security.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center observed, “As you read his OERs, linked here, I’m sure you will come to several conclusions about Matt Dooley.  First, he is an outstanding officer and had a brilliant career ahead of him.   Secondly, he loyally served every one of his commanders.  Third, he was respected by the men under his command.  Fourth, his superiors at the Joint Forces Staff College considered him an outstanding instructor.  And lastly, after all he has done for his country and the Army his superiors sacrificed him to the dogs of political correctness.”

OERs are required at least once a year and are normally completed by two superiors, namely, a rater and a senior rater.   The rating officer on an OER is usually the rated officer’s immediate supervisor, an officer of higher rank, who is most familiar with the rated soldier’s specific duties and performance. The senior rater is a leader who occupies the next higher duty position up from the rater and is best positioned to assess both the rated soldier’s performance in comparison to his peers, as well as the rated soldier’s future potential to serve in higher ranks and increased levels of responsibility.

The OERs clearly demonstrate that LTC Dooley’s raters and senior raters all considered him an outstanding officer and advocated his rapid promotion and advancement to the highest levels of responsibility.  Like many of his peers serving alongside him in the military, LTC Dooley has served honorably and with distinction through a number of complex operating environments. Nevertheless, he has become the latest victim of the “Great Purge” to appease the 57 Muslim groups which demanded that instructors using materials offensive to Islam be disciplined.

In fact, after General Dempsey’s public rebuke, a negative OER was ordered and prepared with direction from the Pentagon covering the period from June 2011 to June 2012.   In contrast to the inaccurate and unjust comments in the Pentagon-directed negative OER, the excerpts from earlier OERs describe LTC Dooley’s outstanding performance.

LTC Matt Dooley attended the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he graduated and received his commission as a Second Lieutenant, Armor Branch in May 1994.  His assignments included deployment to Bosnia, Kuwait, and Iraq for a total of six operational and combat tours over the course of his career.   He served as a Tank Platoon Leader, Tank Company Commander, Headquarters Company Commander, Aide-de-Camp (to three General Officers), and Instructor at the Joint Combined Warfare School.  He is a graduate of the Command and General Staff College as well as the Joint Forces Staff College.

 

Muslim Influence in Pentagon Prevails; Material on Radical Islam “Purged”

 

U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center announced today that it is representing U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, a 1994 Graduate of the U. S. Military Academy at West Point.  In April 2012, LTC Dooley, a highly decorated combat veteran, was publically condemned by General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and relieved of his teaching assignment because of the negative way Islam was portrayed in an elective course entitled, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.

The actions against LTC Dooley, an instructor involved with this elective, follow a letter to the Department of Defense dated October 19, 2011 and signed by 57 Muslim organizations, demanding that all training materials that they judge to be offensive to Islam be “purged” and instructors “are effectively disciplined.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “We are privileged to represent Lieutenant Colonel Dooley.   He has honorably served his Nation for 18 years and effectively carried out every assigned mission with distinction.  He served as Aide-de-Camp to three different General Officers and deployed to Bosnia, Kuwait, and Iraq for a total of six operational and combat tours.  During that time he received numerous awards and decorations. Now after a lifetime of service to his country, he is being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and expediency by the Army he so loyally served . . . and loves.”

Thompson observed, “In order to appease Muslims and the White House, General Dempsey and the Department of Defense rushed to punish LTC Dooley.  In the process, they violated not only our Nation’s core principles of free speech and academic freedom guaranteed by our Constitution, but also, a number of the military’s own regulations dealing with academic freedom and non- attribution policies of the National Defense University (NDU)  to which LTC Dooley was assigned.  They violated the right to due process of law and even by-passed the University’s Provost, who under NDU’s own rules has primary responsibility for adjudication of this matter.”

Click here for a Summary of NDU regulations on Free Speech and Academic Freedom

Click here to read DOD Directive 5.00 Non –Attribution/Academic Freedom

While serving as an instructor at the Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC) , a branch of the National Defense University established by Congress, LTC Dooley took on the herculean task of guiding students through one of its most vibrant but controversial elective courses.  In grappling with the most dangerous aspects of radical Islamist ideology, students in the elective were encouraged to debate and affirm or dismiss a number of notions regarding Radical Islam as well as confront what strategic U.S. actions were feasible or infeasible.    Dooley assumed his instructor position within the National Defense University with an understanding that years of prior-approved course content, established guest speakers, and doctrinal teaching methodologies were still safe to discuss.

The Thomas More Law Center played a pivotal role in defending LtCol. Jeffrey Chessani, USMC, another loyal military officer, who was ordered to face a court martial to appease the Iraqi government and anti-war politicians, especially Congressman John Murtha (D-PA).   A military judge dismissed the charges against Chessani on the grounds of undue command influence.

Parroting the FBI’s reason, namely, “political sensitivity” as the reason for not thoroughly investigating Army Major Nidal Hasan, which  ultimately led to the Ft. Hood Massacre, General Dempsey on 24 April 2012 ordered a review of instruction that was “disrespectful of the Islamic religion” to ensure “cultural sensitivity.”

The result is certain.  Officers and instructors see what has happened to LTC Dooley, and will refrain from telling the truth about Islam or confronting the difficult strategic challenges facing our nation for fear of jeopardizing their professional careers.  The Pentagon has still apparently not learned from the politically correct policies that led to the Ft. Hood massacre.

Our military, while conducting the difficult task of threat analysis, does not have the luxury of hiding from potentially offending those who would do us harm.  It is precisely our refusal to consider the often irrational, volatile nature of those who do not think with our western world view that has led us to this crisis of conscience.   Those people who subscribe and enforce the current environment of political correctness are the ones most often surprised by incidents like the terrorism at Ft. Hood and the uncivilized behavior currently roiling North Africa and the Middle East.

Rather than thinking and acting bravely, PC’er’s strike at our cherished First Amendment in a vain hope of buying friendship with a force we still do not understand that neither respects us nor appreciates civility.   Despite the military’s decade long effort to come to a more sophisticated level of cultural awareness, we have missed the most critical and basic lesson of this war: weakness itself is a provocation.

This is a threat to our National Security.  In effect, our own government is applying Islamic Sharia law to prevent any criticism of Islam.  The chill on instruction is already happening at the Joint Forces Command College of the National Defense University, to which LTC Dooley is assigned.

Claire M. Lopez, a former CIA agent and strategic policy and intelligence expert, recently commented on General Dempsey’s order:

“The final bastion of America’s defense against Islamic jihad and sharia, the Pentagon, fell to the enemy in April 2012, with the issuance of a letter from General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, re-issuing his earlier order that all Department of Defense (DoD) course content be scrubbed to ensure no lingering remnant of disrespect to Islam.

All U.S. military Combatant Commands, Services, the National Guard Bureau and Joint Staff are under Dempsey’s Muslim Brotherhood-dictated orders to ensure that henceforth, no U.S. military course will ever again teach truth about Islam that the jihadist enemy finds offensive (or just too informative). To all intents and purposes, DoD Secretary Leon E. Panetta likewise has acquiesced to a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of U.S. military education.”

In an astonishing and unprecedented Pentagon News Conference on May 10, 2012 carried nationally on C-SPAN, General Dempsey, with Secretary of Defense Panetta sitting at his side, personally attacked  LTC Dooley, a subordinate Army officer who honorably served our Nation, and was subsequently prohibited from publicly defending himself.

Once LTC Dooley’s name was publicly revealed, immediate threats to him and his family prompted security measures to be taken for their protection.

The administrative disciplinary procedures against LTC Dooley included removal from his teaching assignment and withdrawal of an outstanding Officer Evaluation Report (OER) concerning the elective course he had been teaching at the Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC) entitled, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism. However, the course content critical of Islam as an ideology, the guest speakers and their methods of instruction were all pre-approved by the JFSC years ago.

All of that changed when a student outside of his elective complained directly to the Secretary of Defense and touched off a media firestorm full of inaccuracies and political “blame-storming.”

LTC Dooley had received only top marks as an instructor from both students and the faculty chain of command.   He carried the highest student evaluations over the previous 18 months and the highest faculty rating among all active military instructors.  In fact, his senior rater in 2011, Brigadier General Marvin Smoot, went so far as to exclusively point out LTC Dooley as the best of his new instructors, specifically mentioning his positive contribution to the Islam elective now under attack by General Dempsey.

On April 25, 2012, a Defense Department News Release referring to LTC Dooley’s course claimed that General Dempsey felt unprofessional things are being taught to students and that the course material was not “simply objectionable” but “inflammable.” The release went on to say that such content would be scrubbed from the curriculum. Moreover, the release claimed that Defense Secretary Panetta shared General Dempsey’s concern.

Less than a month later, on May 10, 2012, during a Pentagon press conference with Defense Secretary Panetta seated next to him, General Martin Dempsey expressed negative opinions regarding the Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism elective course content, characterizing it as “totally objectionable” and “against our values.”

In this same press conference, General Dempsey personally committed to removing any similar curriculum from military professional education within the JFSC and elsewhere.  Despite a preliminary inquiry that confirmed the purely notional, conceptual, and theoretical nature of LTC Dooley’s class, General Dempsey’s implication, before the inquiry was complete, that Dooley formally advocated actions outside of U.S. policy was both premature and inaccurate.

Read more

The same thing happened to Steve Coughlin: The Implications of the Dismissal of Stephen Coughlin, Joint Staff, Pentagon (jihadwatch.org)