iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Joint Forces Staff College Class Suspended After Teaching America's Enemy Is Islam

Joint Forces Staff College

By PAULINE JELINEK and ROBERT BURNS   05/10/12 06:18 PM ET  AP

WASHINGTON -- A course for U.S. military officers has been teaching that America's enemy is Islam in general, not just terrorists, and suggesting 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 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.

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 U.S. 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 U.S. specifically.

"It is therefore illogical" to continue with the current U.S. 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."

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 U.S. 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 that the more devout a Muslim is, the more likely he is to be violent.

___

FOLLOW HUFFPOST COLLEGE

Filed by Rebecca Harrington  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 389
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (9 total)
05:01 PM on 05/19/2012
Did the muslims show any reverence to Ayodhya when they conquered it and built plenty of mosques in the city?. Ayodhya is the birthplace of Lord Rama, and whose temple they destroyed in 1528 and built a mosque on its place. Is Ayodhya less holy than Mecca? To muslims, Ayodhya is not holy at all.

Same thing they did to Kashi (Benaras), Vrindaben (Mathura), Kurukshetra and numerous other holy cities of Hindus.

Why do other people have to show reverence to Mecca when muslims won't show any reverence to other religions?

Romesh Chander
04:56 PM on 05/19/2012
Did the muslims show any reverence to Jerusalem when they conquered it in 634? They 'destroyed' it with the weapons of that age. Jerusalem is the place where Jesus Christ was crucified and special religious importance to Christianity. Then they conquered Bethlehem and Nazareth, again the cities of special religious importance To Chriatianity.

Did they not destroy Jerusalem when they re-conquered it after the Crusades? How did they destroy it? They used the weapons of that age.

Why is US bending over backwards to muslims? What is US afraid of that we cannot even express our ideas regarding muslims, Islam, and methods of warfare?

Romesh Chander
03:11 PM on 05/19/2012
AlQuida was operating in Mecca. Saudi Government, a few years back, took strong action against them in Mecca, killed a few of them (along with a few bystanders), recovered plenty of guns and ammo. If AlQuida and its muslim warriors do not show much respect for their holy city, should others show any respect? and especially in war? Should they not be considered just another city?

Romesh Chander
02:48 PM on 05/19/2012
How do you fight your enemy if you are not ready to correctly study your enemy, his ideology, his methodologies? No wonder US Military has not been able to win a war since the World War 2. Yes, which war did we win since WW2? None, absolutely none. Rather, Korean War and Vietnam War should be considered as major defeats. And now add to that of Afghanistan and Iraq, and probably Yemen (too early to tell). And we spend $700B every year.

If you do not Islamic ideology in depth, you will never be able to fight muslims, not to talk of defeating them. I looked at the slides / power point of the course; did not find any thing incorrect in it; may be some overemphasis, but no errors. And in war, certain features do need overemphasis.

Are we really fighting wars?

Romesh Chander
01:36 PM on 05/19/2012
I wonder if the 'professor' is a radical religious fundamentalist himself?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Acharn
11:27 PM on 05/19/2012
Probably. I've heard there's a cult established at West Point that tries to indoctrinate students there. I wonder if this turkey has served on Lt. Gen. "Gerry" Boykin's staff, maybe at Camp Nama. There are some very scary fanatics in the higher ranks of our armed forces.
03:03 PM on 05/13/2012
Let truth be told; colonialism, ethnic cleansing of the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, brutal slavery, WWI, WWII, putting Jews and Gypsies in ovens, Apartheid South Africa, Rwanda Genocide, deliberate nuking of innocent civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, lynching of young black men and the subsequent celebratory picnics by the river, Jim Crow, etc., etc., etc. Just looks like one doesn't have to be Muslim to be evil.
05:26 PM on 05/12/2012
I fear for my family in Afghanistan on a daily basis. This isn't helping...
02:34 PM on 05/12/2012
this means America its officals n its policies are real terrorists .... These people talk about Makkah and Madina .... Forget it .... Even Anti Christ will fail to enter madina ..,.. Its a challenge ...
12:01 PM on 05/12/2012
How can we say that we're fighting "terrorists" who are defined as people hurting or threatening to hurt innocent civilians for political, religious or social reasons, while teaching our young officers that we can assume the same kind of behavior??
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Quis Custodiet
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
07:48 AM on 05/12/2012
So, the 100,000 dead Arabs in Iraq should not be a surprise, eh?
09:24 PM on 05/11/2012
America's enemy is people like him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
brian464
world peace thru world wide disarmament
04:33 PM on 05/11/2012
Out of billions of muslims, Bin Laden could only find 19 muslims on 9/11/01 to attack the US

and Bin Laden could not find any of the millions of American muslims to cause havoc on 9/11/01.

The US government knows that Al-Qaeda is a tiny group of terrorists who tried to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia in the 1990s

but Al-Qaeda being tiny, failed for 9 years to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia

and so Al-Qaeda decided to attack the US homeland on 9/11/01.

The US government eventually gave in to the demands of Al-Qaeda and withdrew its troops from Saudi Arabia in 2003.

But to keep its supporters in the warfare corporations and institutions happy, the US government needs to keep Al-Qaeda "alive"

and the only way to do that is to keep instigating Al-Qaeda through drone attacks in various countries.

The easiest way to end the war with Al-Qaeda is

(1) have a law that drafts the eligible children of pro-war politicians and have those children on the front lines of any action

(2) have Americans pay for the war out of their paychecks instead of borrowing trillions from the Chinese

If the above is done, politicians will be tripping over each other to make peace with the enemy

and there will not be anymore unnecessary trillion dollar wars that is bankrupting this nation
01:06 PM on 05/12/2012
i dont agree with (2).
02:52 PM on 05/19/2012
Brian464:

Bin Laden did not need more than 20 highjackers to do his 9/11. More would have been useless and even a security risk. Less would have made the project to fail.

Romesh Chander
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
brian464
world peace thru world wide disarmament
04:15 PM on 05/11/2012
From the report : " following World War II precedents of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima "

Comment :

the atom bombing of Hiroshima was totally unnecessary :

http://forum.isi.org/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=5270060552&f=9310035552&m=4280031492&r=4301034126#4301034126
09:25 PM on 05/11/2012
So was the Iraq War.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Acharn
11:35 PM on 05/19/2012
Well, at the time it seemed necessary. Cleary you don't remember the fear of an intact Imperial Army in Manchuria and the belief that every house in Japan would be turned into a point of armed resistance. The Joint Chiefs believed (or at least advised the President) that it would take over one million U.S. casualties to conquer the island of Honshu. What was unnecessary, in my opinion, was the U.S. insistence on "unconditional" surrender by Japan, but at the time, to the people who were responsible, it seemed absolutely necessary to prevent future "stab in the back" claims like we saw in Germany after WW 1.
photo
beauwulff
I'm dyin' last
04:13 PM on 05/11/2012
Wow, I had a flashback to the Junior Bush-neocon-chickenhawk era.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
brian464
world peace thru world wide disarmament
04:08 PM on 05/11/2012
People interpret radical texts in every religion by using metaphorical or figurative interpretations or interpret texts in their historical context.

Radicalization on both sides is what happens in every war

and that is another reason why war should be avoided or prevented

by following the non-interventionist policies of Switzerland that never experiences terrorism

but sadly, the Pentagon is not interested in avoiding or preventing war since

only during a conflict is the scrutiny of the Pentagon at its lowest and that is why

the Pentagon wants to keep the public in perpetual fear so that

it does not have to account for trillions of hard earned tax dollars that

it cannot account for due to corruption, waste and/or theft by its defense contractors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRqeJcuK-A

The Pentagon has never passed a financial audit and its pushed off future audits to 2017:

http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2012/apr/13/peter-defazio/defazio-says-pentagon-cant-track-its-budget-we-aud/

Why is it, when 3000 Americans died on 9/11/01, the US government was willing to spend trillions of dollars on the "war on terror"

while cancer research funding is being cut even though over a million Americans die from cancer alone every two years ?

Could it be that the US government is more interested in the profit agenda of the warfare corporations and institutions then trying to save your loved ones or friends from cancer?