Analyst's note:  Absolutely must read and carefully consider.  Will somebody explain how a country can teach its Warriors to defeat an enemy who's tactics, motives and ideology are off-limits in any form of speech or writing?  We know that our enemy follows no such restrictions.

One can only conclude that Mr. Obama and his administration, the bipartisan "useful idiots" we continue to elect, and our lame-stream media, do not want the Islamist jihadists defeated  They would rather use them as a part of their own socialist attempts to destroy this American society from within.  When will those who have taken an oath to defend our Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic stand up and be counted?  Surely they have not all been co-opted to fight only under the flag of George Soros funding?  

Even now we are unnecessarily causing the death and maiming of our Warriors who are fighting to protect this nation.  Unless we get this stopped, all our families, young and old, will necessarily be required to ultimately fight as "front line troops" in the coming battle with those who follow Islam and sharia law. Who will then remember those millions who unnecessarily die in our nation's service? 

I know, I know ... considering all that we do understand about this Islamist enemy, this is not impossible, but rather the ultimate outcome.  What is being reported here is nothing short of ominous.  If you still don't believe me then carefully review how America Now Suffers 'Compulsory Blindness' and see where you stand.  Ignorance of our enemy - believing his propaganda - is NOT a good battle plan. Semper Fidelis.

"Dr. Sebastian L. v. Gorka, Military Affairs Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said on Tuesday that the Obama Administration is rapidly revising federal counter-terrorism training materials in order to eliminate references to Jihad and Islam.

Government bureaucracies usually take a long time in changing a policy. In this case, he said, “I have never, ever seen such a wide ranging review executed with such alacrity.”

[....] Gorka said the Obama Administration today forbids the use of the word “Jihad” to describe the terrorists that target America for destruction, even though they are members of the Muslim religion and openly declare their Islamic aims. What is happening in terms of redefining the threat is “unprecedented” and dangerous, he said.

[....] Gorka said that the administration believes there are “good” Islamists and “bad” Islamists and the former can be dealt with. He said this policy is apparent in the decision by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to have contact with the Muslim Brotherhood “Supreme Guide” Mohammed Badei.

While some Islamists are violent and others use democratic methods to achieve power, Gorka said the fact is that they share the same goal—a world-wide system based on Sharia, or Islamic law, resulting in the destruction of America’s constitutional system of government.

[....] Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst with the Clarion Fund. Mauro reported that Islamists are even exercising influence over what the FBI is telling its agents.

Mauro told Accuracy in Media that another factor behind the ongoing review, in addition to the inflammatory reporting of Wired blogger Ackerman, is the influence of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP), which issued a “Fear, Inc.” report attacking critics of radical Islam as bigots involved in “Islamophobia.”

To understand the dramatic nature of the change that is taking place, Gorka noted that the 600-page bipartisan 9/11 commission report, released in 2004, mentioned Islam 322 times and Jihad as a form of “Holy War” against the West 126 times. But the Obama Administration’s 2009 National Intelligence Strategy, a presidential-level document, doesn’t mention Islam or Jihad once, he said.

[....] Reilly, who has also taught at the National Defense University and is the author of the new book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist, replied that the flawed U.S. Government approach to radical Islam was bipartisan in nature."