Political correctness at Army War College
Thomas Ricks, the great war correspondent who left the WaPo and now blogs for Foreign Policy, brings to light a disturbing report about political correctness at the Army War College. The school allegedly won't let its students study radical Islam....
Why do you, or anybody else, expect the military to be any different than any other branch of government with it comes to political correctness?
I don't know this man, and don't know anyone at the AWC. But his tone is familiar, and doesn't speak well of him.
Ricks is one of the best on the business. If he thinks there is something to this, then there may well be cause for alarm. I looked at the original post concerning this on a previous thread at FP, and it concerned writings of a specific Salafist cleric who was executed under Sadat. Whether that constitutes a blanket ban on teaching radical Islam is unknowable to me, considering I have no contacts at the AWC.
In any event, Foreign Policy magazine is a fantastic read, both online and in dead tree form.
Are they afraid the students will convert?
So "political correctness" no longer means "being too liberal to let people tell the truth", but now can be used for any silencing of the attempt to speak truth to power on either side of the ideological line?
Good to hear it, because the tendency to silence awkward critics extends across the political spectrum.
Please do spread this usage more widely.
We don´t get much into the history of terrorist groups at language school either. Just a basic outline of the Egyptian Brotherhood´s influence on Al Qaeda, and a quick rundown of the various groups and who supports whom. I´m not sure how long this course is that you describe. There might not be much time to address the subject. But these are general officers you are speaking of here. Very highranking. They don´t target individual fighters, or even their networks. They admister which units go where, and with which equipment. The actual work of fighting terrorists, breaking their networks, etc, is done at a much lower level. And we become subject matter experts, and we DECIDE who is targeted and when. The officers take our word for it.
Don´t panic, the Army´s not going to drop the ball on this. We understand what terrorists are, most of us have lost a buddy or two to an IED or rocket. The military compartmentalized and delineates who does what job. The general officers, just like all of us Arabic language specialists, NEED TO KNOW what is good in Islam, the wider Islamic and Arab history, the politics. All of that influences where terrorism comes from and what motivates these groups. You have to understand the big picture. Someone should be studying radical idealogy. I just don´t think it should be the guys with stars on their shoulders, necessarily.
Political correctness goes both ways. We recently learned that over 50 language specialists have been discharged from the military because of their sexual orientation. This in a time when the Army is struggling to recruit and train enough Arab language specialists. I'll quote you back: "Something is very wrong here."
So "political correctness" no longer means "being too liberal to let people tell the truth",
And why do you assume that we are talking about conservatives here. The upper reaches of the military are just as political and can be just as liberal as any other part of the government, particularly at an academic institution like the War College. Remember that all the top military postings are determined by politicians and all officer promotions are approved by Congress.
Coughlin actually still works for the DoD. He denied any pressure to have him resign. Whole thing sounded more like inter-departmental politics.
Ricks is a bit down on AWC right now for personal reasons. There is actually a lot of study done on Islamic thinking.
Steve
Larry,
And why do you assume that we are talking about conservatives here.
I didn't. I followed the links and noted that the person applying the pressure appears to have been that well-known leftie, Donald Rumsfeld.
(from Rick's own account of the matter)
Year-old one-sided allegations don't exactly prove your point that there is any problem with "political correctness" at the War College. The presenters could have been rude jerks. They could have insisted on attacking Islam as a whole instead of the radical off-shoot fueling the violence. Their "scholarship" could be a lot more sloppy than the one-sided blog posts indicate. And the posts say nothing of what's in the regular curriculum at the War College.
Blog posts often start discussions when the facts aren't fully known. That's part of the fun of the Internet, but this is an example of why you should take blog posts (and especially the comments to blog posts) with a huge grain of salt.
On another note, when conservatives try to enforce what they believe is moral and civil behavior, conservatives call it "morality." When liberals try to enforce what they believe is moral and civil behavior, they call it "political correctness." Conservatives also use the term to mean "liberal idea with which I disagree." So it's not exactly that helpful of a term when you want to have a useful and civil discussion.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.