Part 5: AMU’s Curriculum Is Stuck in the Past by Design

Subjects of Interest:

• American Military University (AMU)

• Terrorism and Counterterrorism (INTL450)

This paper examines AMU’s Terrorism and Counterterrorism course to determine if it presents terrorism in a fair, fact-based way. The course fails that test. It focuses too much on Islamic terrorism, highlights white supremacist and right-wing threats mainly in the last week, and skips over left-wing, BLM, anarchist, and eco-extremist violence completely. The course uses outdated material for most topics but brings in recent data for January 6, showing selective updating. This pattern creates a one-sided view that misleads students about what terrorism really looks like today.

The class runs for eight weeks. It pulls from government reports, think tank studies, academic papers, and official speeches. Weeks 1 through 7 zero in on Islamic extremism. They cover Al-Qaeda, ISIS, AQAP, and similar groups in depth. These weeks include case studies like Boston, Fort Hood, Times Square, and San Bernardino. Domestic right-wing violence comes up in Week 8. That week focuses on January 6, The Base, and the Boogaloo movement. The course never brings up left-wing, BLM, anarchist, or eco-extremist groups at all.

The course spends most of its time on Islamic terrorism, which is probably fair considering Islamic terrorism is the number one source of terrorism globally. It digs deep into jihadist recruitment, financing, online messaging, and tactics. Given how much damage groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS have caused worldwide, it makes sense to cover them. But this course claims to cover terrorism broadly. If that’s true, it shouldn’t present Islamic terrorism as if it’s the only real threat. That distorts reality, especially for students who want to understand terrorism in the U.S. today.

When domestic threats are covered, they focus heavily on white supremacist and right-wing groups. The January 6 material uses current data and case studies. That stands out because the rest of the course sticks to older sources. This selective update looks like the course was adjusted to highlight right-wing threats without doing the same for other threats. The course groups white supremacists, militias, and conservatives together without drawing clear lines between them. This isn’t a minor detail. It comes across as a main theme of the curriculum.

The course leaves out left-wing extremists, BLM, anarchists, and eco-terrorists entirely. This isn’t just some small oversight. The course never updates or adds recent data about leftist, BLM, or anarchist violence. This choice adds to the skewed view the course presents. It teaches students to see terrorism as coming from only certain groups while ignoring others.

The course teaches students that terrorism mostly means Islamic or right-wing violence. It ignores real violence from other groups. That leaves students unprepared to see the full picture. The use of old material, except for January 6, shows the bias even more clearly. I pointed this out myself during the Week 1 discussion forum. I wrote that the course relies on material that’s 15 to 20 years old, including the RAND PowerPoint on al-Qaeda from 2003 and The Terrorist Mindset video from 2006. I wrote, “If we continue referencing material that is 15-20 years old, we are failing to 'know our enemy' as Sun Tzu warned.” That shows how even students can see the problem. It shapes how students will think about terrorism going forward. I also raised these concerns directly with my professor. In a letter, I explained that after completing eleven classes at AMU, I had found my answer about what drives radicalization today: academia itself. I wrote that instead of being educated, students are being indoctrinated. I pointed out how the curriculum teaches that left-wing extremism essentially died out decades ago while focusing almost entirely on right-wing and Islamic threats. I made it clear that I won’t sit quietly while critical thinking is replaced with political dogma. My goal is to expose these patterns so students receive education, not indoctrination. During Week 3 discussions, I also raised concerns about how AMU’s counter-terrorism courses rely on outdated sources and consistently downplay left-wing extremism. I pointed out that most of the reading materials focus on right-wing groups and outdated threat models while ignoring violent left-wing organizations that have played a major role in recent political violence. I challenged the use of biased sources like the ADL, which focuses mainly on right-wing hate groups while overlooking left-wing threats. These patterns shape how students view terrorism and contribute to an unbalanced understanding of the threat landscape.

The course materials go beyond omission. In Week 3, the assigned reading states that “most of the 'Left Wing' organizations are long gone.” This sends a clear message to students: left-wing terrorism is presented as a problem of the past, not a current threat. That wording shapes how students view the threat landscape and helps explain why no modern examples of leftist violence appear anywhere in the curriculum. I raised this issue again during Week 5 discussions. I pointed out how AMU’s counter-terrorism courses focus almost entirely on right-wing extremism while downplaying or ignoring violent left-wing actors like BLM, Antifa, anarchists, and eco-terrorists. I noted that major incidents from the right tend to happen once or twice every few years, but violent far-left actions, including property destruction and attacks, have become routine. Yet, AMU’s materials fail to reflect that reality. I also called out the double standards in how national security breaches are handled, where political leaders face no real accountability while junior service members would have their careers destroyed for much less. I raised this again during Week 8 discussions. I pointed out that the 2021 National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, like AMU’s curriculum, focuses almost entirely on right-wing extremism. I wrote that left-wing violence gets treated like it ended with bell-bottoms and disco, while right-wing suspects are painted as the prime threat. I called out how the public is trained to report anyone who flies an American flag, but to applaud people who torch a police car in protest. I argued that radicalization is radicalization, and the rules need to apply across the board, not just to one side. I also raised this concern directly with the professor during Week 1. I told him that although some material, like the panel video I watched, made valid points, it was outdated. I wrote, “Since the video aired, the threat landscape underwent major changes. During that period experts concentrated mainly on Al Qaeda with an emerging ISIS threat as their primary concern. Today terrorists focus on exploiting the internet and social media platforms for recruitment, propaganda campaigns, and radicalization.” I asked him, “Why is a great majority of AMU’s counter-terrorism material so old?” That question still applies. The outdated material leaves students focused on yesterday’s threats instead of today’s realities, all in an attempt to shield against left-wing violence.

AMU’s Terrorism and Counterterrorism course is biased. It focuses on Islamic terrorism, gives late and uneven attention to white supremacist threats, and ignores left-wing violence. The selective use of new data makes the bias even clearer. A good course would cover all ideological threats fairly and stick to facts. This course doesn’t do that.

Click the links below for a breakdown of AMU’s counter-terrorism and homeland security curriculum. Each entry focuses on a specific course, pattern, or policy, exposing how bias undermines national security and professional training.