Lt. Col Matthew Dooley was fired from a teaching position due to complaints from Islamic groups.
Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley is an Army officer who in 2011 began serving as an instructor at the Joint Forces Staff College, where he taught an elective course entitled 'Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism' to fellow officers. The content of that course as taught by Lt. Col. Dooley became a subject of controversy after a series of events which began in September 2011, when Wired's Spencer Ackerman reported whistleblowers had provided Wired with material documenting that the FBI was teaching their counterterrorism agents that 'mainstream' American Muslims were 'violent' and 'radical':The FBI is teaching its counterterrorism agents that 'mainstream' American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers; that the Prophet Mohammed was a 'cult leader'; and that the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than a 'funding mechanism for combat.' At the Bureau's training ground in Quantico, Virginia, agents are shown a chart contending that the more 'devout' a Muslim, the more likely he is to be 'violent.' Those destructive tendencies cannot be reversed, an FBI instructional presentation adds: 'Any war against non-believers is justified' under Muslim law; a 'moderating process cannot happen if the Koran continues to be regarded as the unalterable word of Allah.' Focusing on the religious behavior of American citizens instead of proven indicators of criminal activity like stockpiling guns or using shady financing makes it more likely that the FBI will miss the real warning signs of terrorism. And depicting Islam as inseparable from political violence is exactly the narrative al-Qaida spins - as is the related idea that America and Islam are necessarily in conflict. That's why FBI whistleblowers provided [us] with these materials.The publicity generated by Wired's report prompted criticism from dozens of U.S. Muslim groups who wrote to government officials to complain, such as Muslim Advocates, who drafted a letter to the Inspector General requesting the launching of 'an immediate investigation into the Federal Bureau of Investigation use of grossly inaccurate, inflammatory, and highly offensive counterterrorism training materials about Muslims and Islam used to train its agents and other law enforcement.'Ackerman's articles also prompted the White House's National Security Staff (NSS) to request in October 2011 that the Pentagon provide the NSS with their 'screening process for CVE [Countering Violent Extremism] trainers and speakers' for review:The ongoing review will examine whether counterterrorism training material throughout the government is accurate and relevant, and will make sure the briefings given to federal field offices and local cops meet the same standards as FBI headquarters or the Pentagon. Jose Mayorga, a retired two-star general who now serves as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense, oversaw the Pentagon's contribution to the White House review. In the memo, dated Oct. 16, Mayorga asked aides to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to collect counterterrorism training materials at the 'service academies and major academic centers (e.g., Joint Special Operations University, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and National Defense Intelligence College).'In April 2012, Wired reported that Lt. Col. Dooley's 'Perspectives' course had been suspended by the Pentagon and that General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the highest-ranking military officer in the U.S. armed forces) had 'ordered the entire U.S. military to scour its training material to ensure it doesn't contain anti-Islamic content':The extraordinary order by General Martin Dempsey was prompted by content in a course titled 'Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism' that was presented as an elective at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia. The course instructed captains, commanders, lieutenant colonels and colonels from across all four armed services that 'Islam had already declared war on the West,' said Lt. Gen. George Flynn, Dempsey's deputy for training and education. 'It was inflammatory,' Flynn [said]. 'We said, 'That is not how we view this problem or the challenges we have in the world today.'' Flynn disclosed that since an unspecified 'revision' of the course in the summer of 2011, multiple officers who attended the course had raised internal objections about its presentation of Islam and Muslims. Flynn said he heard about the objectionable material after a colonel enrolled in the course complained about the anti-Islam lessons. 'We looked at it and we found the material to be objectionable and we started digging into it to see, how did the course get this way?' Flynn said.On 10 May 2012, Wired published documentation on the content of Dooley's 'Perspectives' course, stating that:The U.S. military taught its future leaders that a 'total war' against the world's 1.4 billion Muslims would be necessary to protect America from Islamic terrorists. Among the options considered for that conflict: using the lessons of 'Hiroshima' to wipe out whole cities at once, targeting the 'civilian population wherever necessary.' 'We have now come to understand that there is no such thing as 'moderate Islam,'' Dooley noted in a July 2011 presentation, which concluded with a suggested manifesto to America's enemies. 'It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction.' International laws protecting civilians in wartime are 'no longer relevant,' Dooley continues. And that opens the possibility of applying 'the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki' to Islam's holiest cities, and bringing about 'Mecca and Medina['s] destruction.' 'Some of these actions offered for consideration here will not be seen as 'political[ly] correct' in the eyes of many,' Dooley adds. 'Ultimately, we can do very little in the West to decide this matter, short of waging total war.' Documents, videos and web links electronically distributed to the Joint Forces Staff College students included a [debunked] web link titled 'Watch Before This Is Pulled' which supposedly shows President Obama - the commander-in-chief of the senior officers attending the course - admitting that he's a Muslim. Dooley added the caveats that his views are 'not the Official Policy of the United States Government' and are intended 'to generate dynamic discussion and thought.' But he taught his fellow military officers that Obama's alleged admission could well make the commander in chief some sort of traitor. 'By conservative estimates,' 10 percent of the world's Muslims, 'a staggering 140 million people ... hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit' to Islam. He added, 'Your oath as a professional soldier forces you to pick a side here.' It is unclear if Dooley's 'total war' on Muslims also applied to his 'Muslim' commander in chief.When questioned about the controversy over the 'Perspectives' course at a DOD news briefing later that day, General Dempsey characterized its content as 'totally objectionable' and 'academically irresponsible':Q: General Dempsey, what are we to make of these latest revelations of anti-Islamic course teachings at the Joint Forces Staff College? Is it - does it in some way reflect a current - a current of thinking among some in the military that the U.S. is or ought to be at war with Islam? A: I've made an inquiry into a particular course that was brought to my attention by one of the students because he was concerned that it was objectionable and it was counter to our values, you know, 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. And so we are looking at how that course was approved, what motivated the individual to adopt that - it was an elective, but what motivated that elective for being part of the curriculum. And we are looking across the institutions that provide our professional military education now to make sure there's nothing like that out there. It was just totally objectionable, against our values, and it wasn't academically sound. This wasn't about, you know, we're, you know, pushing back on liberal thought. This was just objectionable, academically irresponsible.In September 2012, the Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing that they were representing U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley over his being 'publically condemned by General Martin Dempsey and relieved of his teaching assignment because of the negative way Islam was portrayed in an elective course':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, 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.' 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 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. 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.Thompson also stated that the media's reporting of the issue had been 'unfair' and that LTC Dooley would be appealing his negative performance evaluation:Mr. Thompson [said] that the media reporting on the course was unfair. 'They [superiors] ordered a negative evaluation. He will never have the opportunity for promotion unless this is overturned,' Thompson said. He said Col. Dooley never advocated 'total war' against Islam. The discussion about all-out war, he said, 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? It is akin to discussions inside the Pentagon on 'what-if' scenarios: What happens, for example, if China launches nuclear weapons at U.S. population centers? How does the military retaliate? Mr. Thompson said Col. Dooley made clear that the presentations were not official U.S. policy. The class was 'the most popular at the college' and was intended to provoke debate about Islam, he said. 'He encouraged them to do outside research,' Mr. Thompson said of his client. Following Dempsey's criticism, Dooley received a negative Officer Evaluation Report (OER) after acing them for the past five years, according to Thompson. In military circles, the bad OER was a scarlet letter. 'They [superiors] ordered a negative evaluation. He will never have the opportunity for promotion unless this is overturned,' Thompson said. Col. Dooley is appealing the negative performance evaluation to a board of correction, which can make a recommendation that goes all the way up to the secretary of the Army.
nan