Radicals in military a challenge for leaders
The National Guard’s deployment of thousands of troops to protect the inauguration of President Joe Biden was prompted by the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by right-wing radicals. But its removal of 12 of its own soldiers from that duty underscored a rising concern: How far has radicalization permeated the armed forces?
None of the guardsmen had ties to extremists, but two of them made “inappropriate” comments and texts, the National Guard Bureau said.
It was enough to chill those already worried about domestic terrorism.
Military leaders at every level are supposed to remain alert for signs of “future prohibited activities” and are encouraged to quickly intervene, preferably through
counseling.
“All military personnel, including members of the National Guard, have undergone a background investigation, are subject to continuous evaluation and are enrolled in an insider threat program,” said Garry Reid, the Pentagon’s director for defense intelligence.
The crowd that attacked the Capitol, though holding a common belief that thenPresident Donald Trump, not Biden, was the winner of the Nov. 3 election, included white supremacists, anti-government paramilitaries and QAnon conspiracy adherents. Some were affiliated with no group at all.
Almost 1 out of 5 of those facing charges stemming from the riot are military veterans, news organizations have found.
Data on extremist ideology in the armed forces are limited. The FBI investigated 68 cases of domestic extremism in all branches of the military last year, but beyond that, the Pentagon is unable to say how many service members have been disciplined or kicked out for that reason in any recent year.
The vast majority of those in the military serve with honor and “don’t espouse these sorts of dangerous beliefs,” Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said. “But that doesn’t mean … that we don’t think that there might be a problem. The problem is, we don’t understand the full scope of it.”
“I think it’s been an open secret for a while that there’s a lot of white power stuff in the cops and the military,” said war correspondent, author and documentary filmmaker Sebastian Junger. “Obviously it’s hard to know how deliberately Trump tapped into that. The armed rally at the Michigan Statehouse (on April 30) did seem like a trial run for Jan. 6, though.”
An unscientific Military Times poll of readers last year found that more than one-third of all active-duty troops and more than half of minority service members said they had recently witnessed white nationalism or ideologically driven racism among other service members. The poll did not define the term “white nationalist.”
But there’s no question that extremists can be found in uniform, said Mark Pitcavage, a specialist on far-right groups with the Anti-Defamation League.
The new National Defense Authorization Act has ordered a survey on the issue, he said.
Scrutiny and backlash
The FBI scrutiny of National Guard soldiers came amid concerns that Trump’s supporters would attack Biden’s inauguration Jan. 20 in a repeat of their attempt to stop the certification of his election at the Capitol. But it sparked a backlash, with Gov. Greg Abbott expressing outrage on Twitter.
“This is the most offensive thing I’ve ever heard. No one should ever question the loyalty or professionalism of the Texas National Guard,” he wrote Jan. 18. “I authorized more than 1,000 to go to DC. I’ll never do it again if they are disrespected like this.”
The FBI provided the names of suspect guardsmen to the Guard Bureau, which sent the troops back to their home states — but it would not say which states.
“The suggestion there is something improper or illegal about a federal agency responsible for ensuring security at the inauguration harvesting information from social media accounts that are in the public domain. I think it would be unreasonable not to do that,” said Geoffrey Corn, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston and a retired Army lawyer.
“My response to the governor would be, why would you be upset about learning this?” he added. “You should be thanking the FBI.”
Troops can join political parties, participate in rallies and protests (but not in uniform), sign petitions and contribute to political campaigns. They can’t join criminal gangs or wear gang clothing and prohibited insignias. And they can’t actively advocate racial supremacist, extremist or criminal gang doctrine, ideology or causes, or support groups that advocate illegal discrimination.
The Army updated its guidance in September with a lengthy chapter on extremism.
The most prominent example of domestic terrorism committed by a U.S. military veteran was former Army Sgt. Timothy McVeigh’s 1995 bombing of a federal office building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people.
Active-duty service members who committed “insider attacks” on fellow soldiers in more recent decades were motivated by personal grudges and in some cases Muslim religious fanaticism, the deadliest being Maj. Nidal Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who killed 13 and wounded 31 at Fort Hood in 2009.
Some argue that rigorous vetting of service members, including the surveillance of social media posts as the FBI did with the guardsmen in Washington, is overdue.
One of them, retired Army Col. Mike Jason, a veteran of Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Kuwait, said those in active duty with whom he talks, with few exceptions, have tried harder to stay apolitical even as America “has gotten so polarized and so partisan.”
“I’ve watched social media, I’m in contact with former soldiers that are now NCOs, a lot of officers, and most of them that are still in really seem to have embraced the professionalism of being apolitical,” he said.
Diversity a firewall
Even if radical politics follow soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines from their hometowns into the service, the military’s diversity remains a hedge against the problem, said Ross Ritchell, an author and Army special operations forces veteran.
Those joining the armed forces come from too many places to be unified in their beliefs or identities while serving, he said, but the difference these days is the nation’s supercharged politics.
“People may be scared or angry or misinformed and manipulated, so agitators might latch on to anyone vulnerable to persuasion or incitement/persecution,” Ritchell said in an email.
Concern over the potential that radicalized troops could strike at Biden’s inauguration was so strong, the Joint Chiefs of Staff signed a letter reminding troops of their duty.
“Any act to disrupt the constitutional process is not only against our traditions, values and oath, it is against the law,” it said.
Enforcing that isn’t so simple.
“On the one hand, extremism in the ranks absolutely cannot be tolerated,” said retired Army Col. David Maxwell, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, in an email. “On the other hand, the appearance of witch hunts and purges and unfounded and mistaken allegations will undermine good order and discipline of military units.”
Leaders must be able to identify and deal with extremists while recognizing legitimate political views that might be distasteful to some, Maxwell said.
“There’s a balance between McCarthyist behavior and letting Nidal Hasan get to the point where he executes a mass shooting,” agreed Texas National Guard Maj. Travis Pendleton, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. “I think it was pretty well documented that there were multiple red flags with Hasan’s interactions with other personnel. ... He was on everybody’s radar.”
Corn, the law professor, said the military doesn’t have to justify scrutinizing social media because those posting on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have no privacy protections.
But unlike social media, email messages are protected by the Fourth Amendment unless it’s an official government account. Troops with security clearances submit to background investigations, he said, so there’s no legal impediment to screening them.
“But it’s complicated because there’s a fine line between constitutionally protected freedom of expression and association, even in the military, and conduct that compromises your fitness to continue to serve in the armed forces.”