From Draft NOtices, April-June 2021
Connecting White Extremism in the Armed Forces to the Military's Culture
— Isidro Ortiz, PhD
The revelation that nearly one in five of those charged in the assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6 had served or were currently serving in the U.S. military has catalyzed analyses and recommendations by military and political institutions, advocacy organizations, and peace advocates; regrettably, only the last have connected the insurrectionist involvement to the culture of militarism.
The initial institutional action occurred one week after the rioting when the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued an "unprecedented" memorandum informing service members that the January 6 assault on the capitol represented "an attack on the constitutional process of the United States." Going against the hopes of the insurrectionists that the military might support their insurgency, the Chiefs declared that the U.S. military would "obey orders from civilian leadership, support civil authorities to protect lives and property, ensure public safety in accordance with the law, and remain fully committed to protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Eliminating any idea that the inauguration of the president-elect would not occur as scheduled, the Chiefs further declared that President-elect Biden would be inaugurated and become the Commander in Chief. They also urged military members to continue in a state of readiness and observation.
On February 3, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin, III, after meeting with the Joint chiefs of staff to discuss the issue of extremism, ordered a Department of Defense "one day stand down" to discuss the extremism in the ranks. Austin observed that while the numbers of participants in the assault "were small they were not as small as anyone would like." Austin declared extremism in the ranks of the military was a "leadership issue" that had to be addressed from the highest to the lowest units of leadership. Thus, the stand-down would occur over a sixty-day period.
On March 2, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a report informing that the DoD was "facing a threat from domestic extremists, particularly those who espouse white supremacy or white nationalist ideologies." Such "extremist/terror groups" were actively attempting to recruit military personnel, encouraging their members to join the military for the purpose of acquiring combat and tactical experience. Military members were "highly prized for these groups as they brought legitimacy to their causes and enhanced their ability to carry out attacks." Although service members were "prohibited from participating in or advocating for supremacist and other extremist ideology," the extremists still posed a problem. In order to counter the threat, the DoD offered recommendations for continuing and enhancing the collaboration with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on screening and vetting activities among potential and actual military members.
On March 9, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in "Extremism in the U.S. Military: Problems and Solutions," declared: "since the 1980s, right-wing extremists have most consistently caused problems for the U.S. military. White supremacists have posed the greatest challenge for the U.S. military." According to the ADL, the "number of extremists in the military--whether they joined as extremists or became attracted to an extremist cause at some point during their service--is small compared to the total number of men and women serving." Nevertheless, the ADL cautioned, "even small numbers of unchecked extremists in the ranks could cause harm and problems far disproportionate to their numbers." The potential harms ranged from physical harm to harm to military recruiting efforts.
In the view of the ADL, "though the military has consistently experienced problems stemming from right-wing extremism for decades, and even though the armed services have no sympathies for such extremists, the military has not implemented systematic reforms designed to deal with this problem on a long-term, ongoing basis." Rather, the military "has tended to respond to major incidents with partial revisions or updates to the regulations or with investigations of specific units or groups." The ADL did not dismiss such actions as insignificant, but it believes that the military "can more efficiently and effectively deal with issues related to extremism in the military" by way of institutional reforms in areas ranging from regulations to training to reporting.
On March 16, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus wrote to Secretary of Defense Austin. As reported by CBS News, the group expressed its concerns about "extremism within the U.S. military, especially white supremacy and right-wing radicalism within the ranks." In addition to citing provisions in the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act for tracking and monitoring white supremacist and extremist activities, the group urged Austin to act to prevent the enlistment of white supremacists and requested a meeting with Austin to discuss the issue. This call seems to suggest that extremism is rooted in the processes of recruitment not the culture of militarism.
In contrast to these actions that do not address the culture of militarism as the seedbed for extremism in the military, Jasper Craven in "How the Military Turns Troops Into Extremists" observed, "It may seem bizarre that guerillas are now trying to tear down a country they once swore to protect. But America's military institutions breed such upheaval" (The New Republic, February 4, 2021). According to Craven, the military has known about homegrown hate for some time, "but has done little about it." Indeed, "the Pentagon's core work has involved a volatile mixture of murder and mythmaking" and the installation of a mindset in individuals "who are now teaching hand signals, battle formations, and other boot camp skills to similarly aggrieved Americans as part of a bloody revenge plot." Unfortunately, he declared, "power holders are promising to fight extremism by falling back on tired solutions drawn from our failed Forever Wars."
Craven concurs that the insurrectionists should be punished. Nevertheless, he rejects empowering the military--"the arm of the government that got us here"--as the solution. Instead, he calls for "an exorcism of military arrogance and influence from the American soul." In his view, the exorcism can be accomplished by an agenda of actions ranging from withdrawal from the Middle East and Afghanistan to the punishment of war criminals. In order to act effectively against extremism, he urged, "we must disarm, culturally, politically, tactically. For once we must give peace a chance."
Craven's perspective and a call is a lone voice at this point. Whether it is heard or becomes the road not taken remains to be seen. What's clear is that the problem of extremism in the military is no longer being ignored or treated as a minor issue.
This article is from Draft NOtices, the newsletter of the Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (http://www.comdsd.org/index.php/draft-notices).
Please consider becoming a $10 per month supporter of The Committee Opposed to Militarism & the Draft
Our investigations and advocacy are an important contribution to the national peace community in the USA.
Donate through the Project on Youth & Non-military Opportunities
###
