Wednesday, October 17, 2012

U. S. Military Officer Career Ruined For Speaking Out Against Islamists


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?

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.

COIN: Afghanistan Counterinsurgency Strategy

2012 IS HERE


Can"t Find It?

Use the SEARCH BLOG feature at the upper left. For example, try "Global Warming".

You can also use the "LABELS" below or at the end of each post to find related posts.

Blog Archive

Cost of Gasoline - Enter Your Zipcode or Click on Map

CO2 Cap and Trade

There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.
Henry Louis Mencken (1880–1956)
“The Divine Afflatus,” A Mencken Chrestomathy, chapter 25, p. 443 (1949)
... and one could add "not all human problems really are."
It was beautiful and simple, as truly great swindles are.
- O. Henry
... The Government is on course for an embarrassing showdown with the European Union, business groups and environmental charities after refusing to guarantee that billions of pounds of revenue it stands to earn from carbon-permit trading will be spent on combating climate change.
The Independent (UK)

Tracking Interest Rates

Tracking Interest Rates


SEARCH BLOG: FEDERAL RESERVE for full versions... or use the Blog Archive pulldown menu.

February 3, 2006
Go back to 1999-2000 and see what the Fed did. They are following the same pattern for 2005-06. If it ain't broke, the Fed will fix it... and good!
August 29, 2006 The Federal Reserve always acts on old information... and is the only cause of U.S. recessions.
December 5, 2006 Last spring I wrote about what I saw to be a sharp downturn in the economy in the "rustbelt" states, particularly Michigan.
March 28, 2007
The Federal Reserve sees no need to cut interest rates in the light of adverse recent economic data, Ben Bernanke said on Wednesday.
The Fed chairman said ”to date, the incoming data have supported the view that the current stance of policy is likely to foster sustainable economic growth and a gradual ebbing in core inflation”.

July 21, 2007 My guess is that if there is an interest rate change, a cut is more likely than an increase. The key variables to be watching at this point are real estate prices and the inventory of unsold homes.
August 11, 2007 I suspect that within 6 months the Federal Reserve will be forced to lower interest rates before housing becomes a black hole.
September 11, 2007 It only means that the overall process has flaws guaranteeing it will be slow in responding to changes in the economy... and tend to over-react as a result.
September 18, 2007 I think a 4% rate is really what is needed to turn the economy back on the right course. The rate may not get there, but more cuts will be needed with employment rates down and foreclosure rates up.
October 25, 2007 How long will it be before I will be able to write: "The Federal Reserve lowered its lending rate to 4% in response to the collapse of the U.S. housing market and massive numbers of foreclosures that threaten the banking and mortgage sectors."
"Should the elevated turbulence persist, it would increase the possibility of further tightening in financial conditions for households and businesses," he said.

"Uncertainties about the economic outlook are unusually high right now," he said. "These uncertainties require flexible and pragmatic policymaking -- nimble is the adjective I used a few weeks ago."

December 11, 2007 Somehow the Fed misses the obvious.
[Image from:]
December 13, 2007 [from The Christian Science Monitor]
"The odds of a recession are now above 50 percent," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's "We are right on the edge of a recession in part because of the Fed's reluctance to reduce interest rates more aggressively." [see my comments of September 11]
January 7, 2008 The real problem now is that consumers can't rescue the economy and manufacturing, which is already weakening, will continue to weaken. We've gutted the forces that could avoid a downturn. The question is not whether there will be a recession, but can it be dampened sufficiently so that it is very short.
January 11, 2008 This is death by a thousand cuts.
January 13, 2008 [N.Y. Times]
“The question is not whether we will have a recession, but how deep and prolonged it will be,” said David Rosenberg, the chief North American economist at Merrill Lynch. “Even if the Fed’s moves are going to work, it will not show up until the later part of 2008 or 2009.
January 17, 2008 A few days ago, Anna Schwartz, nonagenarian economist, implicated the Federal Reserve as the cause of the present lending crisis [from the Telegraph - UK]:
The high priestess of US monetarism - a revered figure at the Fed - says the central bank is itself the chief cause of the credit bubble, and now seems stunned as the consequences of its own actions engulf the financial system. "The new group at the Fed is not equal to the problem that faces it," she says, daring to utter a thought that fellow critics mostly utter sotto voce.
January 22, 2008 The cut has become infected and a limb is in danger. Ben Bernanke is panicking and the Fed has its emergency triage team cutting rates... this time by 3/4%. ...

What should the Federal Reserve do now? Step back... and don't be so anxious to raise rates at the first sign of economic improvement.
Individuals and businesses need stability in their financial cost structures so that they can plan effectively and keep their ships afloat. Wildly fluctuating rates... regardless of what the absolute levels are... create problems. Either too much spending or too much fear. It's just not that difficult to comprehend. Why has it been so difficult for the Fed?

About Me

My photo
Michigan, United States
Air Force (SAC) captain 1968-72. Retired after 35 years of business and logistical planning, including running a small business. Two sons with advanced degrees; one with a business and pre-law degree. Beautiful wife who has put up with me for 4 decades. Education: B.A. (Sociology major; minors in philosopy, English literature, and German) M.S. Operations Management (like a mixture of an MBA with logistical planning)