Is Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Aiding and Abetting the Enemy?

Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley – a highly decorated combat commander – was fired from his position by General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for teaching a course designed to educate soldiers about how to fight back against Islam and Jihad. In essence, Dooley was right on at least two very basic fronts. 1.) He was helping soldiers defend their nation against the biggest threat it faces and 2.) He was arming them with knowledge to protect themselves in the battle.

As such, Dempsey is knowingly putting the men under his command in danger; this is a very serious offense that highlights everything a General should not be. He is supposed to put the safety of his men above himself and certainly above his own career.

This incident epitomizes the serious trouble this country is in unless Obama and his thugs are impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from power. The Benghazi scandal highlights the dangers of our failed and foolish security policies. The administration’s failure to protect Americans there is a model Dempsey appears to have adopted in firing Dooley.

Failure to secure and arm the compound in Benghazi is no different from failing to secure and arm the military itself with the tools necessary to identify and fight the enemy.

Benghazi also presents a vital opportunity to possibly drive these people from political power. The big two-part question now is this: Does the GOP have the courage to follow through and will the media find some intellectual curiosity?

On May 6th, former U.S. Congressman, Lt. Col. Allen West interviewed Lt. Dooley’s legal representative – Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center – to discuss the case:

Is it a good thing to be afflicted with Islamophobia? Get the new book from Walid Shoebat, The Case FOR ISLAMOPHOBIA: Jihad by the Word; America’s Final Warning.

So, instead of firing Dooley, shouldn’t Dempsey have perhaps read the words of the Muslim Brotherhood’s top cleric, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, for example? Shouldn’t we let the words of Islam dictate what Dooley teaches against? Here is an excerpt from an article Walid wrote for World Net Daily in 2011:

Infiltrate and conquer is the new motto of Islam and not “condemn violence especially under Islamic mottos,” as Qaradawi stated. Qaradawi even takes offense when the West compartmentalizes Islam into “radical” and “moderate”:

“One of the reviled expressions used by secularists and modernists is the expression ‘political Islam,’ which is alien to our Islamic society without a doubt. … The reason for this application is a master plan by the enemies of Islam to fragment it into different divisions … they manufactured ‘Islams,’ plural, several different Islams, which they desire to accomplish. Sometimes they even divide Islam by regions: there is the Asian variety of Islam. Then we have the African Islam. And sometimes, according to the ages: There is the Prophet’s era of Islam, and Rashidi Islam, Umayyad Islam, Abbasid Islam, Ottoman Islam and modern Islam. And sometimes, according to race: There is Arab Islam, Indian Islam, Turkish Islam and the Islam of the Malaysian … and so and so forth. And sometimes, according to the doctrine: There is Sunni Islam and Shiite Islam. They even divide the Sunni into divisions and the Shia into divisions. They even added new divisions; there is revolutionary Islam, reactionary Islam, radical Islam, classical Islam, right-wing Islam, leftist Islam, orthodox Islam, modern Islam and, finally, political Islam, and spiritual Islam and theological Islam.”

Qaradawi admonishes the West and corrects this view: “We do not know why they invent such divisions that are rejected in Islam. The truth is that these divisions are all unacceptable in the eyes of a Muslim. There is only one Islam, which has no partners which recognizes no other; it is the first Islam, the Islam of the Quran and Sunnah.”

Perhaps it’s time that the West agrees with Qaradawi: Indeed it is one Islam – flexible Islam.

Gen. Dempsey isn’t just wrong; he’s choosing the wrong side in a war that has been declared on his own country. He’s choosing the side of an enemy the allied with Hitler’s Nazis in WWII – the Muslim Brotherhood – by helping it dictate what U.S. troops are taught and not taught.

If Dempsey’s response is that he was just following orders, such a defense has no standing in war, as the Nuremberg trials demonstrated:

Other defendants used their testimony to emphasize that they were merely following orders–although the IMT disallowed defense of superior orders, the issue was raised anyway in the hope that it might affect sentencing.

At least one of Dempsey’s offenses is the violation of one very basic tenet of known rules of warfare – a rule he himself is well are aware of as a General. This violations is egregious and one day, Dempsey is likely to find the blood of countless Americans on his hands as a result, because he’s helping the enemy keep the military he’s in charge of, in the dark.

Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese warrior whose Art of War dates back over three thousand years, said the following:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.

If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.

If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Dempsey’s behavior is akin to a General who wants to prevent his troops from knowing the enemy while helping the enemy at the same time. There was a time in America when that would be considered the worst possible offense a General could commit.

If harm comes to our troops or our nation as a result of Dempsey’s actions and if he is ever held to account for it, we’d like to remind him that any defense which includes something about ‘just following orders’ will be disallowed.


, , , , , , ,