An OP about the perpetuation of entrenched insitutional bias

An interesting article came my way; it is entitled:

Soldier Who Taught ‘Total War’ Against Islam Threatens to Sue Top Military Officer


Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, was a teacher at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia. Apparently, he fervently believes what he taught. I suspect so will some of our members... but I hope that passion will not interfere with a measured discussion about what the 'belief' of Lt. Col. Dooley seems to imply about the mindset of those who offer military policy advice to the Commander-in-Chief; or what they feel about serving him.

Dooley had been removed from his teaching position, and now has a few attorney friends throwing around the "lawsuit" word to get the attention of the public. The lawsuit seems to center around a simple claim:

Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley is accusing the government of concealing “the truth about Islam” at a time when proponents of his view of an inevitable clash between Islam and the West have succeeded at fanning precisely those flames.

When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff removed Dooley from his assignment, it was over teching things like this:

- "The U.S. ought to consider “Hiroshima tactics” for a “total war” on Islam,
- "There is no such thing as ‘moderate Islam,'
- “Islam had already declared war on the West,
- "Wartime protections against civilians of Islamic countries were “no longer relevant, and
- “Your oath as a professional soldier forces you to pick a side here.”


Reportedly, Dooley considered the reduction of Islam to a “cult status” an acceptable outcome of what he considered a civilizational [sic] war.


The Chairman is quoted as saying that what was being taught is "“totally objectionable, against our values and it wasn’t academically sound.” And thus removed him as an instructor and gave him an Administrative Reprimand (presumably an Article 15.)

Yet a portion of the political body (such as Michelle Bachman), and subsequently the media celebrity parade (such as Glenn Beck), is portraying him as a "free speech martyr." A title which some feel belongs to Terry Jones and his Westborough Baptist Church.


For my opinion, it seems clear that military academicians are so entirely enamored of their opinions that they feel they can, and should teach them to junior officers as "policy." In fact, the Dooley seems to think that NOT pursuing his lesson plan (which featured some choice guest speakers who distributed lesson material stating that President Obama is a Muslim) is tantamount to harming the nation - or putting the nation in harm's way. Clearly, such open antagonism can only produce hawkish officers; especially if they are graded on the material... since in order to pass the course you are likely to have to acquiesce to what your expected to regurgitate.


Imagine if this soldier were promoted to a field commander position. Imagine the treatment of local caught on a battlefield under his operational control. Imagine where such zeal for hateful precepts will lead the soldiers under the command of someone who believes that we need HIM on the wall....

He is free to opine... teaching is not opining. He can say what he likes.... there is no freedom to grade people on their acceptance of whatever you opine in a classroom... or is there?

Isn't this the kind of institutionalized hate that patriotism and a dumbed down education system create?

Why am I not surprised that a military teacher would be forcing his anti-islamist ideals on other soldiers. They've been trained to regard them as less than human anyway. Much easier to kill an animal than it is a human.

My distain for the military in general aside...

I really think that if you want a proper, well run, relevant military, you firstly need to remove the hateful from their ranks and especially from positions of leadership and teaching.

How many other students has this man warped into his sick ideology?

~Tenth

Very interesting thanks for the post.

It all comes down to the prevailing military philosophy in a particular country.

In several threads I have mentioned the crusades. You can mold a certain type of warrior who believes he is fighting for and with his god. The same philosophy can be applied to the mental condition you shave mentioned. If you train your troops to kill without consideration, they will become betters killers.

I was traveling a month or so ago and was waiting at a airport gate and happened to noticed several dozen young individual fresh from high school heading to basic training. The comments and opinions on global issues/cultural groups I overheard, lead me to believe that certain conditioning has already taken place prior to formal training. Perhaps movies, video games and advertising.

reply to post by Maxmars


Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley is a kook and in no way represents the military. There is always one some where. I guess he just slipped through the cracks. It happens sometimes. He should be discharged.

In some of those he is right, others, not so much.

There are moderate Muslims, but extremist Islam did declare war on us because of our alliance with Israel. The attacks on our embassies is evidence of this war. These extremists will not stop until we are all converted to Islam or subjugated to Islam. They do not value the concept of human rights and dignity or liberties. And these extremists really are animals.

Pointing these out is not hate and bigotry, contrary to popular liberal belief.

But punishing people who have nothing to do with the extremists is wrong, and blanket statements like "there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim" is bigotry.

And encouraging the use of nuclear weapons to wipe them ALL out is bigotry. And we don't need a teacher like that.

Peace should be the ultimate goal, but we shouldn't be stupid about it. We shouldn't blind ourselves to the violent nature of the Islamic extremists either. They should indeed be fought every step of the way, because they will not stop fighting us.

If we were out of their countries, they would simply come over here and cause that kind of trouble. What then?

Hiroshima tactics? Is this guy seriously advocating the use of nuclear warheads? wartime protections against civilians of Islamic countries were “no longer relevant." Promoting the murder of innocent civilians?The world is being run by madmen. To be bluntly honest, I think this officer needs a psychiatric evaluation. The diagnosis "psychopath" comes to mind.

reply to post by Maxmars


But are folks like the Lieutenant really any more dangerous than those who appear reasonable and level-headed and regard the 'war against terrorism' as a necessity?
I talked to alot people who often repeated the rhetoric, how they were fighting 'the good fight', that they would liberate the people and bring democracy to these contries.

Originally posted by billy197300
reply to post by Maxmars

 

Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley is a kook and in no way represents the military. There is always one some where. I guess he just slipped through the cracks. It happens sometimes. He should be discharged.

I can't say that I would think him in any way (other then technically as an instructor) a representative of the military.

I served 12 years and can tell you that in my time (which was during the first Iraq/Kuwait debacle) we would never even have entertained some of the ideas his personal 'doctrine' entails. In fact, we probably would have laughed at anyone who would try to evoke the kind of bias he did....

But in his position as a 'teacher' of junior officers, it gives me pause to wonder what damage his words could lead to, once translated into an operational environment.

I fear this extreme example of vilifying the enemy will be used to cast the same 'evil' light on military people whoa re simply doing their duty as they understand it. It will lead to more characterizations of the US military as 'Satan spawn' despite the efforts being made to eliminate the unnecessary vitriol and angst within the ranks. Professional soldiers don't "need" to be hell-fire and fury for a righteous cause... that's attitude is for zealots who don't contribute to the military culture.. they just want to be utterly justified for anything they can think of doing to harm anyone "else" within their reach.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


I can see your point - and it is not invalid. There was a time where the fundamentalist movement strongly proselytized 'jihad' and war for the sake of their faith. But not all Muslims accepted that radical and destructive view as part of their faith.

Sadly, those who have selected their targets only discuss those zealots; and represent them as the sum total of Islam. Why such thought process automatically exclude any consideration of Muslims being people just like anyone else eludes me.

To be honest, the one thing that bothered me MOST was:

- “Your oath as a professional soldier forces you to pick a side here.”

Which to me is the sickest attitude of "If you're not with us, you're against us." Most know where that kind of thinking leads.... and historically we have looked upon it as a travesty of manipulation. In theoretical reality, a soldier's opinion of something is not reflected in the execution of his or her duties. THAT is the measure of integrity - something which is apparently being totally disregarded as a real aspect of being a soldier.

But, in my opinion, officers such as this would rather have programmed automatons under their command...

reply to post by Maxmars


LTC Dooley is on his own. I have spent over 20 years in the military and have never heard any similar views espoused in any type of learning environment. Quite the opposite in fact.

On top of that, you have a cadre of military members who have now spent quite some time in predominately Islamic areas of the world. For the most part, they know better. My guess is this dude had a classroom of eye rollers and yawners every time he went on one of his tirades.

To assume the young officers he trains are mindless and incapable of discerning BS from non-BS is off the mark.

Originally posted by talklikeapirat
reply to post by Maxmars

 

But are folks like the Lieutenant really any more dangerous than those who appear reasonable and level-headed and regard the 'war against terrorism' as a necessity?
I talked to alot people who often repeated the rhetoric, how they were fighting 'the good fight', that they would liberate the people and bring democracy to these contries.

A good point, and worth exploring.

It may be that their is an argument that those who 'believe' as the Colonel does are "just as dangerous." However, I think most people can reach an understanding where they recognize the difference between what they believe and what the actually experience. Many would notice that aside from the obvious similarities, there are many people of foreign lands and cultu8res who - despite being painted as murderous enemies - are actually quite like us... we are not all that different.

The flip side of that is this colonel who 'teaches' this material, and obviously believes it. That means to change his opinion would probably be repugnant and a surrender to him... admitting you have been wrong for along time is more difficult for those who consider themselves elite (as many military officers are trained to do.)

Originally posted by ABNARTY
reply to post by Maxmars

 

To assume the young officers he trains are mindless and incapable of discerning BS from non-BS is off the mark.

I don't think they are.... but if they wanted to pass his class they had to pretend it wasn't BS.... that is the beginning of embedding bias into the culture. This instructor had authority and trust given to him. He confused his classroom for a pulpit, and his lesson plan for a holy script.

I think the events as they unfolded show that the military is not by any means 'going along with this.'

But I bet dollars to doughnuts that despite the radically anomalous nature of his perception, Col. Dooley's words will be made "politically relevant" and we, having discussed here, will know what is happening where others will just take the media spin, or the political rhetoric as 'simple truth."

Facts are simple.... the truth rarely is.

reply to post by Maxmars


Some valid points.

Please remember the US Military is made up of a cross section of Americans. You are going to get some of those once in a while. If anything it is more of an indicator of what is floating around between sea and shining sea than any over riding climate of the military. Heck, he might even be a Hero to some Americans, a patriot or whatever.

I definitely agree he treated his lectern as a pulpit. Definitely went off the reservation.

Originally posted by ABNARTY
reply to post by Maxmars

 

Some valid points.

Please remember the US Military is made up of a cross section of Americans. You are going to get some of those once in a while. If anything it is more of an indicator of what is floating around between sea and shining sea than any over riding climate of the military. Heck, he might even be a Hero to some Americans, a patriot or whatever.

I definitely agree he treated his lectern as a pulpit. Definitely went off the reservation.

He's no hero. Some people are part of the problem and some people are part of the solution. HE is part of the problem.

reply to post by billy197300


Nope. There are definitely those to whom he is a good guy. I do not include myself in that bunch but just read ATS long enough and there are some right here.

I know the military is downsizing so hopefully the good LTC will soon be providing services elsewhere.