previous post next post  

Suing the Chairman

 ...by an active duty officer, no less.

The Army officer who once taught that the U.S. ought to consider “Hiroshima tactics” for a “total war” on Islam has put America’s top general on notice for a possible lawsuit. 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.

I had this up on Facebook, I thought I would toss it up out here.

Read the article, don't just riff off the paragraph I tossed up here.

For that matter, read the Thomas More Law Center's take on the topic (they're representing LTC Dooley), because Spencer Ackerman (the Danger Room writer) certainly wears his opinion on his sleeve.

The Thomas More Law Center announced today that it is representing U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, a 1994 Graduate of the U. S. Military Academy at West Point. In April 2012, LTC Dooley, a highly decorated combat veteran, was publically condemned by General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and relieved of his teaching assignment because of the negative way Islam was portrayed in an elective course entitled, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.


So, Auld Pharts (and the few younglings who drop by to see what the asylum dwellers are up to) - whatcha think?

Strong opinions over on FB.

Unrelated note: When did a Bronze Star (without V) and apparently no CAB, become "highly decorated combat veteran?"   Not dissing LTC Dooley's service, but his ribbon bars look to me like "showed up for work, did his job well enough to get the usual bits of ribbon, and didn't spend much time actually looking at the elephant."  Mind you, that's true for *most* of us, and in no way reflects upon his service.  But I just don't see "highly decorated combat veteran" there.

18 Comments

Can't say that I completely agree with the idea of a serving officer bringing a lawsuit against the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. That being said, what other avenue does LTC Dooley have available to him? Perhaps resign his commission and then pursue this as a civilian? Not sure, but as a retired Master Sergeant this just feels "wrong". After visiting the Thomas More Law Center's website, the "wrongness" of his actions seem, somehow, less wrong, in light of the following:

"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.”

Seriously, these organizations want to dictate to the Pentagon what can and cannot be taught to our troops? And the top general at the Five Sided Puzzle Palace is listening to them? Frankly, we shouldn't "offend" the terrorists, we should destroy them. Root and branch. All is not well.
 
Nothing wrong with showing up for work and doing the best you can, but I ceertainly agree that's not combat (although a seasoned bureaucrat might object to that).

At the same time, I have mixed feelings about this, but I think I would come down on the LTC's side on this, if he was actually fired for committing truth while lecturing. The real picture of Islam is pretty negative, from start to finish.
 
I'll be the unpopular guy I guess.  While I have no great love for Islam, and in fact agree that in most ways it's incompatible with Western style democracy (you cannot have a freedom based rule of law and Sharia, they do NOT work together), I also think the LTC crossed a line.  Sure, it's troubling that it looks like the Pentagon caved to outside special interest groups.  Granted.  But again, the LTC is actually advocating genocide (religicide?) against one billion people.  Oh sure, not ALL of them, just the ones that refuse to give up their faith.

Now, why am I spun up about it.  Imagine the LTC was an Atheist.  And replace "Islam" with "Christianity".  Still ok with what he's advocating?  Would you still be upset if the Chairman shut him down at the insistance of the Catholic League, the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference and other Christian groups?

Look, I UNDERSTAND we're not talking about Christians bombing innocent civilians, and I'm not even trying to pretend there's any comparision.  What I AM saying is that if a staff officer DID call for the absolute destruction of Christianity, you'd not think twice about condemning him or blame the Chairman for doing so.  And the fact is, a serving officer suing the Chairman for shutting down his elective course is pretty stupid.  What's next, suing because your leave gets cancelled?
 
Greetings:


We are in an ideological struggle with Islam and we have, ideologically, given it sanctuaries that the North Vietnamese would have died for. Samuel P. Huntington, in his “The Clash of Civilizations…” laid out an intelligent map of our world these days, not that anyone in the Obama administration seems aware of it. These buggers have been at it for 1400 years and they’re not going away anytime soon unless we take the initiative out of their bloody, bloody hands.


What’s going on right now in the muslim parts of the planet shows the soft spots in their culture. “islamophobic” movies, cartoons, comedians, should be all over the media space every day of the week and twice on Fridays and Sundays. Fill their “mindshare” with our disrespect, criticism, mockery. Keep whatever kind of panties they wear under whatever those things they wear are in such large and permanent knots that they can neither ambulate nor defecate.


There is a Coptic Christian priest, by the name of Zacarias Boutros, who used to do (possibly still does) radio programs about the Idiocies of Islam and its possible originator. There should be something similar on the air 24/7/365.25 to show the world what idiots we are to be showing muslims any respect at all.


They are like those locusts who will go to ground for whatever number of years and then re-appear to wreck whatever they can. We pretty much put Communism back in the box. It's time to get started on Islam and its Islamaniacs. If Lt. Col. Dooley behavior seems unseemly to strict military constructionists, Gen. Dempsey's behavior would seem to reek of political hackery.

Academis freedom, anyone ??? General Buehler ???


 
 
Two things:

1st highly decorated to a civilian is mulitple rows of ribbons not what they are for.  Easy to see how a civilian could be confused by the amount of colored ribbon on a uniform.

2nd we really do need to face facts and realize that Islam is not our friend and hasn't been since the time of Muhammed -- assuming he really lived (see Robert Spencer on that).  They have always had this disagreeble view of every one else.  You will notice the so-called moderates aren't doing much about the rioting trhroughout the Muslim world over a movie trailer none of them have seen and hardly anyone else had either prior to the Bengazi disaster and our government's inital refusal to see terror where it was -- in their face -- and tried to blame an obscure movie trailer.
 
As to crossing lines, I'm of the opinion that there are no more lines. The lines went away when the left gained their victories in doing everything possible to end the US military as an effective fighting force.

Our military has become a feminized, gender normed, squish mess of PC bullcrap spewing UN peacekeepers. The left won through litigeous maneuvers, so give it back to them in spades, say's me.

And the LTC is absolutely correct in his views on Islam.
 
Like most civilians, I can't read the pretty ribbons which are handed out in such profusion these days. I mind the time two shiny Marines showed up in church in dress blues for the christening of their children.  I looked at their chests, and _was_ able to determine that they both shot Expert, one of them with both rifle and pistol. They had lots of ribbons, too, but I think it would have been rude to stare too closely.
 
 MikeD, you can't do your "imagine if..." game in this instance, because what the Lt. Col was teaching is specific, and would NOT be the same if some other religion were inserted. In case you've been on extended underwater patrol under full EMCON, or some similar total military isolation, Islam is the ONLY religion which has a significant fraction of adherents believing in violent forced conversion, or death to non-believers.

The rest of you would be well advised not to get stuck on the officer's decorations, or lack of them. They are not related to the content of his thought. Instead, concentrate on the legal and practical aspects of the case. Practically, unless GEN Dempsey wants to disrupt the entire chain of command, he needs to keep HIS yap shut about the Lt. Col's course. It would have been easier for the CJCS to simply instruct an aide to communicate properly DOWN the chain to the Lt. Col. and his direct superior. Doing it by means of the naked power of the CJCS and the Obama-friendly MSM indicates that GEN Dempsey has somewhat of a dictator fetish, which, strangely enough, mirrors that of HIS boss, the CIC.

As for the futurist aspect of the Lt. Col's course, it is simply one scenario in which it is assumed that radical Islam continues and strengthens it's present stranglehold over the larger Islamic religion, and also assumes that nuclear proliferation among Islamic nations continues apace. One MUST assume that somewhere, around a group of radical mullahs, discussion of a plan for the final thrust of force to initiate the Grand Caliphate is taking place, or already has. That plan would, of course, include the use of weapons of mass destruction as part of the force-projection scenario. Nukes are simply the most feared WMDs.

It seems to me that all the Lt. Col. has done here is start discussion on countervailing force-projection strategies. That's taboo, of course, under the current CICs Administration, but any officer worth his/her salt must consider such strategies.

In retrospect, the Lt. Col. might be a few to 50 months ahead of his time, but you must ask yourselves whether the Western World even HAS the luxury of taking years to consider such things.

Rivrdog - You can take the man out of SAC, but you can never take SAC out of the man...
 
Our current military mindset...

A man teaching the observable and historical truth about our enemy had to be shut down for fear we'd insult our enemy.

That's how far we've fallen. And, I'm beginning to believe we can no longer get back up.
 

..what choice does he have EXCEPT to sue?

although i sincerely believe that the honorable thing for him to do would be to resign and go elsewhere, the practical thing for him to do is exactly what he's doing now.

he's USMA '94.  two years away from retirement. 

resign = "chuck it all"

sue = "can't touch me, i'm a whistleblower" (offer valid for the duration of the legal proceedings, conservative estimate of 2 years duration)

 
He is fighting the battle he feels in important .... the one against islamic radicals and their lawfare tactics.

I won't share my opinion that the General abandoned his office for a personal vendetta.
 
The LTC did indeed cross a line.  He never, ever should have crossed it.  BUT....  he could step into the footprints of Retired Colonel Kevin Benson, and most importantly, those of Martin Dempsey, on the way over it. 

http://xbradtc.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/18887/

http://xbradtc.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/general-dempseys-disappointment-with-free-speech/

Before anyone hops on the fact that Benson was not on active duty but retired, he was on the gummint payroll.  And Dempsey sure as hell is on active duty.

Dempsey is just fine with the "enemy" in a mythical scenario being a legitimate and law-abiding group of American citizens.   But he is highly indignant that the "enemy" is portrayed as our enemy. 

The shameless double standard is horrifying.    I don't like the lawsuit.  But Dempsey's deliberate political toadying made it not only possible, but plausible.  Shame on him.   Except he has none.

 
 General Dempsey?  The same guy who called a civilian preacher to try to get him to shut up?

Oh, now I see.
 
President Bush got it right when he said on 20 September 2001 "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Dempsey has shown by his repeated bowing (dhimmitude?) to the wishes of the mullahs that he is not a warrior, but a spineless politician.  A warrior would identify the enemy and find ways to destroy them, not our own people speaking truth, in the case of the instructor in a factually based class; or in the case of Constitutionally protected free speech in the case of a nut case "pastor."

What part of "RID THE WORLD OF THOSE SAVAGES!" does Dempsey fail to understand.

Dempsey should resign, and the LTC certainly is doing the right (if not politically expedient) thing in standing up to his injustice which will handicap our real warriors as they go forth to do battle with our enemies, whom some wrongly think are friends or at worst harmless.

Jihad does not require the infidels to fight back, and in that case, the Muslims win by default.

 
Deebow over on BlackFive has an excellent post on Dempsey to add further umbrage at his submissive nonsense.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/09/its-not-you-its-me.html

Useless tool.

 
The problem that we have is with the moderate, faithful followers of muhammad. It is the "extremists" that wish to live peacefully with their neighbors. A recent poll of American islamists asked if they agreed with the suicide bombers and their motivation. Guess what the majority of "moderate" American islamists support?  The following are their own theological rules from their own koran.

Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless
to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" Quran 48:29

"When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks..." -- Qur'an 47:4

Why do the moderate islamists act the way they do? Because they are faithful followers of muhammad and try to act like he did. We shouldn't be suprised that they kill as many innocents as they do...we should be surprised that they don't kill more....

muhammad killed people and stole things, and raped kids, so while some Christians may not act very Jesus-like, those in the "religion of peace” who murder, steal and rape act just like muhammad.

I applaud the "extreamist" who do not emulate muhammad and hope and pray that they can reform their religion, but they are a small portion in islam today and the "civialized" nations are supporting and making excuses for the murderous majority.

 
I think way too many people - especially our so-called political and military leaders - make the critical mistake of considering Islam as just another "religion", equating it with all other religions in a very simplistic "moral relativism" and "cultural equivalency" way.

Islam is much more than that. It is an all-encompassing system that includes and dominates ALL aspects and institutions of Muslim society and culture:  religion, politics, judiciary and justic system, economics, military, education, etc etc.

There is no difference between "church" and "state", no concept of "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". And it is extremely intolerant of other cultures and religions, seeking to obey the Koranic mandate of jihad to subjugate all others under Islam.

For these reasons, Islam is fundamentally incompatible with modern Western doctrines of freedom, democracy, capitalism, etc., and with Judeo-Christianity and almost every other religion.

And it is why we in the West are destined to forever remain in a "clash of civilizations" with Islam until either Islam prevails or we prevail.
 
THere's a couple of problems here.

1)  Efficacy of the proposed, or infered, strategy of 'we will be here but you won't be'.

1a)  Wars of annihilation are terribly expensive.  von Clauswitz wrote of them as an idealized war tha was bankrupting and impossible to realize, but the strategy proposed by Dooley and his supporters is exactly this type. 

LIddle-Hart also pointed to wars that left the enemy no way of retreating or backing away from the political object, and a clash of civilizations is exactly this, were folly.  You'll pump tonnes and tonnes into the effort and never succeed.  He tried to explain this with the two wrestlers using main strength analogy. 

TPM Barnett called advertising your intention to partake of this strategy, regardless of whether you use it, to be devoid of strategic thought, dubbing it 'walking into the bar and announcing you'll fight every sob there.' 

1b)  How would this work?  Hiroshima, firebombing or Tokyo and Dresden, the mass bombing campaigns of LeMay and Harris had hard objectives behind them:  break the ability to conduct mechanized land warfare through destruction of industry or persons needed for industry, or disrupt the political machine to make war impossible to conduct.  LEave aside that these largely DIDN'T work for the moment, but, what would we be attacking and with an analogous rationale here?  How do you define a valid industrial, political, or military target using the line of reasoning 'but they're Moslems and immicable with us so they must either quit or die'? 

2)  White hats wear white hats because they do white hat things, not because they say they're white hat wearers.

This is often discussed in terms of Western Civilization and Western Mores while talking about abandoning those traditions.  Western Civ has sought more and more over the last 400years to limit war's reach to civilians.  Now we're talking about being the Mongol Horde, taking war to the furthest reaches of our enemies lands.  How is that being the heirs to the legacy of the Doughboys or even the forces of Desert Storm? 

Balzac wrote, 'YOu may be compelled to make war, but you're not compelled to use poisoned arrows.'  Mass civilian casualty causing campaigns are not using 'poisoned arrows' how?  But, gollum, they cheat, lie, break GC, LoLW, and do other bad things!  So.  Who we are is not defined relative to what they do but by what we do.  Being at war does not mean we're totally unconstrained. 
3)  Dooley is behaving poorly.
He lost the policy fight.  THings aren't being conducted according to his 'druthers, tried to skirt the system to teach 'how it really is', and got busted for it.  I don't see how you can leave aside that he's actively undermining stated US policy.  Disagree with the policy?  Fine, seek to have the POTUS, his Admin, and the officers he appoints to highest levels of command replaced and a new policy put in place.  Undermining policy is what we saw the anti-war jokers do and we know what that did.  Is it any different when one of 'our side' does it?  Torpedoing a policy doesn't prove it's wrong.  It just proves you're a jerk who cannot handle losing the argument. 
4)  I thought left wars of religion behind at the Treaty of Westphalia and another war that defanged the RC church rendering political power to nation states?  Now we're to go back on that, to leave that tradition of Western Civ behind, because the savages are fighting a holy war?  Who's wearing the big boy pants in this fight?  Us or them? 

Do it professionaly.  Do it dispassionately.  Do it the right way to erect a better state of the world.  This ain't it.
gollum