U. S. Military Officer Career Ruined For Speaking Out Against Islamists
SEARCH BLOG: ISLAM
Recently, I wrote posts regarding the Obama administration and Pentagon's politicization of military operations that have placed our soldiers in greater-than-necessary risk in order to "win the hearts" of those who have no interest in giving their "hearts" to America.
Once again, the forces of political correctness have turned their fury toward an American soldier. No, not the "star officer," U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan who "Allah akbar-ed" 12 fellow soldiers. No, the fury was directed at Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley who had the temerity to teach fellow officers that Islam was a threat and that we needed to be prepared to fight it in every way.
Attorneys for Lt. Col Matthew Dooley, a West Point graduate and highly-decorated combat veteran, was an instructor at the Joint Forces Staff College at the National Defense University, where by most accounts he won praise from students and faculty alike. But when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey excoriated Dooley during a Pentagon press conference [???] in May, characterizing his course, “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism” as objectionable, unprofessional, and “against our values,” Dooley's once-bright career effectively hit a dead end, say his backers. [more]What was it that Lt. Col. Dooley said or did that was so terrible?
[source]
Lt. Col. Dooley was treading some thin ice here. He was saying that Islamic terrorists were not state actors and should not be accorded the protect of the Geneva Convention. Further he intimated that at some point the use of massive firebombing or even nuclear weapons was an alternative that may have to be considered. In effect, Lt. Col. Dooley was saying that when it comes to Islamists, the correct and only response should be overwhelming destructive actions.
There are many... most... who will cringe at the thought of using nuclear weapons as a response to Islamic terrorists. From one slide, it is not really possible to place the entire context of his thinking, but it may be simply that nothing should be left off the table because it is likely that, at some point, the Islamic terrorists will not hesitate to use whatever technology or weapons that they have against us.
So, here is a highly-decorated officer whose career has been ruined for teaching a class to military officers that pointed out that the use of all military weaponry should be considered against a force that could easily be acquiring nuclear weapons in the near future... and has shown the world that they have no regard for "rules of engagement" themselves.
Ah, but our military generals tell us that we must remain moral and noble and pretend that Islam is just another religion and our fears are unfounded while we send our soldiers into harms way hamstrung with politically correct "rules of engagement." The mere teaching that we should consider a nuclear option is unthinkable. Should we have to think about such an option? No one wants to... because it is unthinkable... until it isn't.
Strangely, our military field grade officers [O4 - O6] seem to have differing opinions regarding rules of engagement... perhaps because they have to actually be part of the conflict. Perhaps that is why a field grade officer felt it was necessary to open up the nuclear pandora's box.
Question: if General Dempsey believes that the potential use of nuclear weapons is "against our values," why, as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, keep them in our arsenal? Does he just like the way they look?
That doesn't me we have to go all "Dr. Strangelove." But, if you keep saying that "we are leaving in X amount of time" or "we won't let our soldiers do X, Y, and Z or certain actions are "against our values," then we are saying that if you attack us, don't worry... you can just wait us out until it's time for us to watch Honey Boo Boo and we lose interest in you.
RELATED:
COIN: Afghanistan Counterinsurgency Strategy
From 
