In wake of Jan. 6, US military struggles to curb extremism
As the Pentagon was reeling from the Jan. 6 Capitol riot one year ago 鈥� with current or former members of the U.S. armed forces ultimately accounting for in the attack 鈥� military officials began putting together a plan to battle extremism in the ranks.
They decided the first order of business should be to define some terms for their troops.聽
Long before the storming of the Capitol, the Department of Defense prohibited 鈥渁ctive advocacy鈥� of 鈥渟upremacist, extremist, or criminal gang doctrine, ideology, or causes.鈥�
Why We Wrote This
Americans who have served in the military are sometimes put on a pedestal when it comes to patriotism. Yet the armed services are finding they need to confront serious challenges of extremist thinking.
But it turns out that service members may have been unsure what, exactly, 鈥渁ctive participation鈥� or even 鈥渆xtremist activities鈥� meant, senior defense officials said.聽It鈥檚 a claim that聽contains聽some measure of wishful thinking, critics countered, as if a simple restating of the rules could set errant troops straight.聽
Still, officials averred, the stunning events of Jan. 6 鈥渄emonstrated a need to clarify鈥� matters.
The Pentagon鈥檚 new plan, released in December, does this, and also puts a finer point on what activities are prohibited for U.S. troops聽who support white supremacy. Newly banned actions include, among other things, 鈥渓iking鈥� racist content and social media posts advocating a violent overthrow of America鈥檚 government.
While welcoming this added clarity, defense analysts say big questions remain about whether the new measures聽go far enough and can聽be successfully聽put in place.聽The聽outstanding聽needs, they say, range from better civics education and mental health services to tamping down notions of people with military credentials as a superior class聽in聽society.
A key challenge, they add, will now rest with officers in the ranks, who are being tasked with making the new rules operative.
鈥淚n some respects this reflects a lot of trust [in] unit commanders to basically be implementers of this policy. But there are some serious conflicts of interest here,鈥� says Andrew Mines, a research fellow at George Washington University鈥檚 Program on Extremism. Yet, he adds, 鈥渁ny sane person looking at this sees that Jan. 6 is clearly prohibited.鈥�
New rules for troops
The new guidelines prohibit essentially any show of support for racist聽groups,聽including donating money, time, or training to them. Troops are also barred from 鈥渁ctively demonstrating or rallying in support of extremist activities,鈥� said a senior U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity during a background briefing for reporters.
In the online realm, 鈥渨e went from having absolutely no policy on social media rules鈥� to making some, the official noted.
One thing the Pentagon doesn鈥檛 ban is membership in extremist groups, including the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan or the paramilitary Oath Keepers, whose members have been charged with helping organize the storming of the Capitol building.聽These groups recruit聽service members for the perceived street credibility, as well as equipment, they might bring聽with them.
鈥淚t was really important to us that we preserve First Amendment rights to the extent we could, and that we focus on an individual鈥檚 action, regardless of whether they did that on their own or as part of an organization,鈥� the defense official said. 鈥淸Yet] you鈥檒l see that any way that someone could sort of actively become a member of an extremist organization, we鈥檝e accounted for those. So we don鈥檛 think that there is any way for someone to be a member of an extremist organization in any meaningful way.鈥澛�
Mr. Mines, at George Washington University, says banning membership in extremist groups would amount to playing 鈥渨hack-a-mole鈥� with organizations that routinely change their names. The FBI doesn鈥檛 maintain a list of domestic extremist groups, either.聽
Still, 鈥渨ould you want to occupy a foxhole with a guy who鈥檚 a member of the KKK, even though he can鈥檛 march with the KKK? No, I would not,鈥� says retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who commanded the mission to train Iraqi troops early in the war and rejects the Pentagon鈥檚 First Amendment arguments in this case.
鈥淵ou surrender a whole lot of civil rights when you elect to come into the armed forces, and when you accept the oath鈥� of enlistment, in which troops swear to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, he adds. 鈥淭he argument that [troops] have freedom of speech 鈥� well, not really.鈥澛�
Mr. Eaton decided to make a public plea for the military to get a better handle on extremism in its ranks in part, he says, after 124 other retired U.S. generals 鈥減ut out a letter that basically bought into the Republican attack on the validity of the election, and also put in doubt President Biden鈥檚 capacity to serve as the president of the U.S.鈥澛�
Appalled, he teamed up with two co-authors, also retired generals, to publish an opinion piece in The Washington Post. Above all, they wanted to warn their fellow Americans, he says, that 鈥渨hat used to be an article of faith 鈥� that any threat to the U.S. is going to come from outside the U.S. 鈥� is no longer true.鈥澛�
They聽urged, among other things, better civics education. 鈥淣o service member should say they didn鈥檛 understand whom to take orders from during a worst-case scenario,鈥� they聽wrote.
The Pentagon report concurred with this assessment and proposed beefing up discussion surrounding the oath that personnel take. It said officials should also examine 鈥渢he role of mental and behavioral health in extremist activities.鈥澛�
A key role for unit commanders
Looking forward, enforcement looms as a difficulty 鈥� partly because defense officials have made clear that addressing rule-breakers shouldn鈥檛 be聽centralized at the聽Pentagon.
鈥淐ommanders will have to make that call on their own in terms of what they believe is the right thing to do,鈥� Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 not something that the department would dictate at this level. And not everything has to be punished, either.鈥澛�
Depending on where commanders鈥� sympathies or ambitions lie, this approach could prove problematic, defense analysts say, since reports of racist behavior, particularly if pervasive, have the potential to reflect badly on unit leadership.
鈥淚f I鈥檓 a unit commander and I don鈥檛 think the Proud Boys are that bad, then I鈥檓 not going to report anything,鈥� Mr. Mines says. He adds that the 鈥渨e trust our unit commanders鈥� ethos will tend to emphasize nonpunitive disciplinary measures as an initial response.聽
The Pentagon, for its part, would get beefed-up offices to field whistleblower complaints under the new plan. What it doesn鈥檛 have is any means to police the social media accounts of individual service members. And 鈥渢hat鈥檚 not the intent,鈥� Mr. Kirby said.
But maybe it should be, Mr. Eaton and his co-authors suggest: 鈥淭he goal should be to identify, isolate and remove potential mutineers鈥� and 鈥済uard against efforts by propagandists who use misinformation to subvert the chain of command.鈥� The new measures 鈥渄on鈥檛 go nearly far enough to address a developing problem.鈥澛�
What allows extremism to take root?
The good news in all this, Pentagon officials have taken pains to emphasize, is that extremist threats within the forces appear to be relatively small. Of some 2.2 million active-duty personnel and reservists, roughly 100 of them were found to have taken part in extremist activities in 2021, according to Pentagon officials.
The numbers represent an increase over 2020, when that figure was 鈥渋n the low double digits,鈥� Mr. Kirby said.聽
This could portend an increase in extremist behavior or simply be a sign that reporting is getting a bit better 鈥� the latter being the Pentagon鈥檚 preferred explanation. In either case, tackling the problem requires understanding how some veterans develop grievances and become radicalized, says Scott Cooper, a Marine Corps veteran for whom the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was a seminal event.聽
鈥淪ome of that rhetoric that [bomber and Army vet Timothy McVeigh] consumed is now becoming mainstream,鈥� Mr. Cooper, now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, said last month during a Brookings Institution discussion on extremism in the military. 鈥淲hen it becomes patriotic to be against your government, there鈥檚 a problem there.鈥�
For the vast majority of veterans, 鈥淚f you think about it, joining the military is one of the great acts of trust. You鈥檙e trusting that your country will use your life well,鈥� he said. 鈥淎nd yet what we have right now is a number in the veteran community that have been duped into believing other conspiracy theories that have come to really resonate with them.鈥�
Understanding why, he added, involves acknowledging that Americans promiscuously place veterans on a pedestal. This elevated status may be giving some vets the idea that they, more than others, know what鈥檚 best for the country.聽
This is not the case, Mr. Cooper said 鈥� a conviction that reminded him of a letter that Gen. Jonathan Wainwright, a former prisoner of war and later commander of the 4th Army, sent his troops as many of them were being discharged after World War II.聽
Mingled with Wainwright鈥檚 praise was a hint of warning: 鈥淵ou have seen what happens when [people] follow false leaders. You have seen what happens when a nation accepts hate and intolerance. ... Make your individual voices heard, not for selfish things, but for honor and decency among men, for the rights of all people.鈥澛�
Mr. Cooper鈥檚 conclusion: 鈥淵es, I served eight tours overseas, seven of them in combat. But my sister who teaches elementary school back in Wyoming I think has done more for our community and our country than I ever have done. And I think it鈥檚 important that as veterans we don鈥檛 try to put ourselves above the rest of society.鈥澛�
In the effort to avoid U.S. military troops鈥� involvement in any sort of repeat of the Jan. 6 insurrection, analysts say, that may be the most important lesson of all.
