TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 6 °C Thursday 23 May, 2013

Military course which taught that Islam is America’s enemy suspended

The course for military members and government workers suggested that the Geneva Conventions on armed conflict were no longer relevant in the US’ war on Islam.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey said the course was
Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey said the course was "against our values".
Image: Susan Walsh/AP/Press Association Images

A COURSE FOR US military officers has been teaching that America’s enemy is Islam in general, not just terrorists.

It suggested that the country might ultimately have to obliterate the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina without regard for civilian deaths, following World War II precedents of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima or the allied firebombing of Dresden.

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 US officials over the last decade that the US 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, Virginia.

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…).”

‘Destroyed’

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.

A summary of Dooley’s military service record provided by Army Human Resources Command at Fort Knox, Ky., shows that he was commissioned as a second lieutenant upon graduation from the US Military Academy at West Point in May 1994.

He has served overseas tours in Germany, Bosnia, Kuwait and Iraq. He has numerous awards including a Bronze Star Medal, the fourth-highest military award for bravery, heroism or meritorious service.

In what he termed a model for a campaign to force a transformation of Islam, Dooley called for “a direct ideological and philosophical confrontation with Islam,” with the presumption that Islam is an ideology rather than just a religion.

He further asserted that Islam has already declared war on the West, and the US specifically.

“It is therefore illogical” to continue with the current US strategy — which Dooley said presumes there is a way of finding common ground with Islamic religious leaders — without “waging near ‘total war,’” he wrote.

The course on Islam was an elective taught since 2004 and not part of the required core curriculum. It was offered five times a year, with about 20 students each time, meaning roughly 800 students have taken the course over the years.

Though Dooley has been teaching at the college since August 2010, it was unclear when he took on that particular class, called “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.”

‘Totally objectionable’

The joint staff suspended the course after it had received a student complaint, and within days Dempsey ordered all service branches to review their training to ensure other courses don’t use anti-Islamic material.

On Thursday, Dempsey said the material in the Norfolk course was counter to American “appreciation for religious freedom and cultural awareness.”

“It was just totally objectionable, against our values, and it wasn’t academically sound,” Dempsey said when asked about the matter at a Pentagon news conference. “This wasn’t about … pushing back on liberal thought; this was objectionable, academically irresponsible.”

In his July 2011 presentation on a “counterjihad,” Dooley asserted that the rise of what he called a “military Islam/Islamist resurgence” compels the United States to consider extreme measures, “unconstrained by fears of political incorrectness.”

He described his purpose as generating “dynamic discussion and thought,” while noting that his ideas and proposals are not official US government policy and cannot be found in any current official Defense Department documents.

A Pentagon inquiry is seeking to determine whether someone above the professor’s level is supposed to approve course materials and whether that approval process was followed in this case, said Col. Dave Lapan, spokesman for Dempsey.

The problem of negative portrayals of Islam in federal government is not new. A six-month review the FBI launched into agent training material uncovered 876 offensive or inaccurate pages that had been used in 392 presentations, including a PowerPoint slide that said the bureau can sometimes bend or suspend the law in counterterror investigations.

That is significant because ever since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the FBI has stressed the importance of working with leaders in the Muslim community as an important part of the battle against terrorism.

The FBI review began last September after Wired.com reported that the FBI had discontinued a lecture in which the instructor told agent trainees in Virginia hat the more devout a Muslim is, the more likely he is to be violent.

Read next:

Comments (18 Comments)

  • Do the Americans not know that they are only fueling an already blazing fire….i think that they know full well what they are doing, so as to justify having a military presence in the Arabic nations to mind there oil

    Reply
  • I don’t know which is crazier, the fact that there is a course on this or that it took nearly a year before someone objected to it.

    Reply
  • Promoting the pretence of Democratic values , while preaching religious bigotry, intolerance and hate!

    Reply
  • American foreign policy is imperialist and racist… no surprises there then.

    Reply
  • Same old America, nothing changes.

    Reply
  • They are racists, war mongers! This does not surprise me at all.

    Reply
  • I see nothing wrong here – in fact, everybody shoud extend their enemy to being religion in general.

    Reply
  • @Kevin
    I don’t agree I think as people get better educated religion becomes less relevant to them.
    We went through our middle ages Spanish inquisition, burning witches, hunting down and murdering Jews and Moors.
    The same experience is taking place in parts of the Islamic world today.
    In time this will settle down and eventually as they become better educated religion will be of less importance to them.
    Poverty has a large part to play.
    But the biggest culprit of them all was settling Jewish people in to Palestine after the war. Then taking land off the Arab people and then making them second class citizens in their own country.
    Of course this was backed by the British and Americans.
    The Brits might have backed off in time but with the powerful Jewish vote in the US the Palestinians have been kept down.
    Some day in the not too distant future when the Hispanic population becomes the dominant vote in America the Jewish lobby will be out of business
    Then America will watch it’s problems in the middle east disappear for good.
    But for Israel the future does not look good.
    I wouldn’t be investing billions of dollars in a big high tech plant in Israel to watch it be blown to bits.
    But that’s just my opinion.
    I’m not an expert.
    Its a best guess you could say.

    Reply
    • Stefan I’m educated to postgraduate level and religion is still relevant to me. The United States and Israel are two of the most educated countries in the world but I don’t think you could call them lacking in religiosity.

      I agree completely with you in regards to the importance of the Israel-Palestine conflict in increasing support for Islamist terrorists. That in itself shows that religion as a concept or practice in itself is not the source of the world’s problems.

      As far the Jewish lobby I think it’s power is overestimated. The Armenians have a hugely powerful lobby in the US and all they get is recognition of their genocide and $90 million in aid. Israel gets to do what it likes because they are strategically important in the region to the US not because of their lobbying efforts.

      Reply
  • Religion is always the enemy

    Reply
    • JayK 11/05/12 #

      A recent study on Muslim university students in the UK found that 32% believed killing in the name or religion is justified and 40% want UK Muslims to be subject to Sharia law (wikileaks). And these are English-based university students, who you would assume are liberally biased. So “Islam as the enemy” isn’t as ludicrous as it seems to be suggested.

      For balance, I find almost all religious dogma to be highly objectionable. Then again, would many Catholic university students agree with killing for Catholicism?

      Reply
    • @Stefan . That’s an unfortunate view. Not least because it leaves you with an undefeatable foe.

      @Jay I haven’t read the survey you refer to but I’d be curious as to why the information comes via Wikileaks and not from the research company itself. Perhaps it wasn’t published directly for a reason e.g. methodological issues. Even if there are no issues with the research itself I would argue with your view that the sample should be regarded as the opinion of moderate Muslims because the participants are UK based university students. Being in a UK university doesn’t make you British and in fact many of them are likely to come from less than liberal countries and will return there when their studies are completed.

      Reply
  • JayK 11/05/12 #

    http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1231525079_2.pdf

    This is the summary of the study. There’s no methodology or any details beyond the results, so you have to take it on face value. I only present it for consideration.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Social_Cohesion

    This is the wiki entry on the London-based “thinktank” that performed the study. It’s accused of being “right-leaning”, and its director seems like a bigot, but there’s nothing to suggest the research is dishonest (although I accept that doesn’t mean it isn’t).

    Reply
    • JayK 11/05/12 #

      Sorry, this was meant as a reply to Kevin Elliot, not as a new comment. I never hit the reply button.

      Reply
    • Thanks for the link Jay. Unfortunately they don’t provide the actual phrasing of the relevant question but given that the majority of the respondents are referring to killing if ‘the religion was under attack’ I would argue that it’s more than possible that many of them are answering in regard to a question of self-defence against an invading force or a repressive government.

      Reply

Add New Comment