If the report had revealed even one secret Klansman, the legacy media would have trumpeted the results. Instead, there have been crickets.
Why? The Institute for Defense Analyses, the nonprofit that the DOD tapped to perform the review, finds “no evidence that the number of violent extremists in the military is disproportionate to the number of violent extremists in the United States as a whole.”
Capitol Riot Involvement
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin directed the military to observe a one-day stand-down to discuss and address extremism on Feb. 5, 2021, based on reports that some service members took part in the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. He issued a second memo on April 9, 2021, directing the DOD to counter prohibited extremist activities and launching an independent study on extremist behavior in the military. The institute published that report to little fanfare in December 2023.Yet the report finds that very few active-duty personnel took part in the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
“Of the more than 700 federal cases in which charges were publicly available a year after these events, fewer than ten were for individuals who were serving in the military at the time,” the report notes.
The institute’s analysis of court martial cases finds that “extremist and gang-related activity” appeared in “fewer than 20 cases” since 2012. “If gang cases are excluded, the total number of extremist cases amounts to just one case per year over the period studied,” the report reads.
Defining Extremism
The military has struggled to define extremism without violating rights protected under the First Amendment.The military prohibits certain extremist activities, such as supporting the overthrow of the U.S. government, encouraging military personnel to disobey lawful orders, supporting terrorism, advocating unlawful violence, and advocating for widespread unlawful discrimination based on race and other factors. Advocating for a true system of white supremacy where nonwhites are systematically denied the same rights afforded to whites would fall under advocating widespread unlawful discrimination.
A Salient Warning
Importantly, the institute’s report warns against the DOD overemphasizing the threat of extremism.“DOD has used a wide variety of terms, phrases, and concepts to describe prohibited extremist behaviors and activities. As a result, service members at all levels told the IDA team that they are unaware of or confused about existing definitions and standards,” the report notes. “In the absence of a clear and consistent message, there is a risk that misinterpretations could lead to a significant division in the force along political and ideological lines, with some members of the military believing that they are being targeted for their views.”
“IDA found reason to believe that the risk to the military from widespread polarization and division in the ranks may be a greater risk than the radicalization of a few service members,” the report states. “For this reason, IDA’s recommendations focus more on steps that could be taken to address underlying causes of extremist behavior than on punitive responses to such behavior.”
“Yet the damage has been done,” Mr. Gallagher said. “As the report itself acknowledges, anecdotal accounts of military participation of events like January 6 ‘magnify the actions of a few and provide little information on the overall scope of the problem.’”
He argued that Mr. Austin’s actions “have created a false impression with the public that the military has an extremism problem, thereby politicizing the Pentagon, undermining trust in the military, and exacerbating the recruitment crisis with an already skeptical cohort of young Americans.”
“In order to stop the politicization of the DOD, solve the recruiting crisis, and save the all-volunteer force, DOD leaders must recommit to excellence in warfighting,” Mr. Gallagher said.
The Institute for Defense Analyses noted that the Department of Defense “can no more tolerate advocacy of violent extremism in the ranks than it can tolerate racism, sexism, and discrimination.” Yet it seems that discrimination in favor of the left’s agenda on race too often gets a pass.