Friday , 14 February 2025
Home Politics: Breaking Political News & Updates New Year’s Attack Sparks Resurgence of ”U.S. Military Extremism” Risk

New Year’s Attack Sparks Resurgence of ”U.S. Military Extremism” Risk

36
Mourning the Victims

At the start of 2025, New Orleans and Las Vegas were struck by deadly attacks, both carried out by U.S. military veterans or active-duty personnel. In fact, four years ago, the “Capitol Hill Riots” triggered a crackdown on military involvement in extremism, with the Pentagon implementing measures like halting training, forming anti-extremism task forces, revising the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and banning the “liking” or sharing of extremist content on social media. However, critics argue these actions were superficial and lacked lasting impact. Now, the shocking terrorist attacks at the start of the new year have once again sparked concern and reflection among some Americans, media, and experts about the issue of “military extremism.”

“Not a New Problem”

On January 1, in New Orleans, retired Army soldier and terrorism suspect Jabbar drove his vehicle into a crowd, killing at least 15 people. On the same day in Las Vegas, an electric car explosion was caused by active-duty Army Special Forces soldier Leifelsberg, who died in the blast along with 7 others injured. Initial investigations revealed that although the two suspects did not have direct links, they shared a common experience: both were deployed to Afghanistan in 2009. While the two attacks occurred on the same day, their motives were different. Jabbar carried out the attack in the name of the extremist group “ISIS,” while Leifelsberg had subscribed to extremist websites and encouraged people to “oppose the government.”

Although the Pentagon emphasized that no evidence linked the two events, the attacks once again brought the issue of extremism within the U.S. military into the spotlight, heightening public fear and sparking widespread skepticism about the Pentagon’s efforts to identify and eliminate extremism.

According to The Hill, “military extremism” is not a new issue. In 2023, Army reservist Robert Card carried out a deadly mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine, killing 18 people. In 2020, active-duty Air Force soldier Steven Carrillo was sentenced to 41 years in prison for using firearms and explosives to kill police officers. In 2009, at Fort Hood military base, Army Major and psychiatrist Nidal Hasan killed 13 people and injured more than 30 in a shooting rampage.

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) at the University of Maryland shows that between 1990 and April 2024, at least 721 individuals with U.S. military backgrounds committed crimes in the United States with political, economic, social, or religious objectives. From 2018 to 2022, the proportion of individuals with military backgrounds involved in extremist attacks increased from 11% to 18%. The data also reveals that the participation of active-duty military personnel and veterans makes extremist plots more likely to cause greater harm or death. According to an Associated Press investigation, radicalization among veterans and active-duty personnel is on the rise. Since 2017, hundreds of individuals with military backgrounds have been arrested for extremist crimes, resulting in nearly 100 deaths or injuries.

In addition to engaging in extremist violence, a report by the International Center for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT) reveals that common extremist behaviors among U.S. military personnel include assisting extremist groups in carrying out violent acts, committing hate crimes motivated by ideology, and obstructing military diversity or undermining military rules through activities or personal behaviors.

“The U.S. Military Has Always Been a Key Recruitment Ground for Extremist Groups”

Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, expressed concern that the U.S. military’s failure to adequately address extremism is extremely dangerous. Whether it is white supremacists or Islamic extremists, individuals with potential extremist tendencies should not undergo military tactical training, as veterans and active-duty personnel are more effective at carrying out killings. Todd Helmus, a senior behavioral scientist and expert on violent extremism at the RAND Corporation, believes that violent extremism is more prevalent among U.S. veterans because they often face a range of issues after discharge, such as mental health struggles, reemployment difficulties, and the loss of comrades.

Mia Hobbs, a researcher at Deakin University in Australia, specializing in the violent experiences of veterans in the U.S.-led war on terror (global military actions following the 9/11 attacks), concluded that military service is clearly linked to violent extremism. The data shows that while most military personnel lead peaceful lives after retiring, active-duty and veteran military personnel account for 28% of suspects in large-scale shooting incidents, a number comparable to the 27% of suspects in mass shootings who are perpetrators of domestic violence. Hobbs suggests that if individuals have a history of violence in specific environments, violence may become a normal way for them to express their views and “maintain social order.”

According to Hobbs’ research, perpetrators of large-scale violent events typically share common traits. For instance, they may view certain groups or society as responsible for their suffering. From mass shooters to suicide bombers, these individuals’ “violent declarations” often reflect a sense of entitlement to specific positions and the perceived injustice of having their rights stripped away. These traits are particularly prominent among U.S. military veterans. In Hobbs’ study, nearly half of veterans from the war on terror expressed difficulty adapting to civilian life, and the complex bureaucracy of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs exacerbated this issue, leading many veterans to feel that their social value had diminished. This psychological gap contributes to a sense of hatred.

Furthermore, the U.S. military has long been a key recruitment ground for extremist groups. Historian Katherine Belue, who studies the history of the U.S. white supremacy movement, shows that after the Vietnam War, white power groups quickly recruited soldiers, veterans, and law enforcement officers who were disillusioned with post-war society. Many long-serving soldiers felt comforted by the strict hierarchy, clear commands, and defined goals of the military, which is why individuals like Jabbar, the suspect in the New Orleans car attack, expressed gratitude for their military service, as it “taught discipline” and “grounded” them. Belue argues that some militia and terrorist organizations also have tight structures, which appeal to individuals who feel aimless after retiring. These groups further attribute personal grievances to issues like immigration, government, and foreign policies, using conspiracy theories to channel expressions of injustice.

According to Hobbs, the military, militias, and terrorist organizations share another similarity: they all view violence as “the proper way to maintain social order and solve societal problems.” The suspects in the two New Year attacks displayed the mindset that violence can solve problems in a corrupt world. For instance, Liffelsberg left two letters on his phone, declaring his attack as a “wake-up call” to the nation, saying it was led by “weak people” only “enriching themselves.”

Training Suspension, Legal Revisions, and Bans

In fact, the U.S. military’s efforts to prevent extremism date back decades. According to Foreign Policy magazine, during World War II, the U.S. Army formed the 620th Engineer General Service Company, one of its tasks being to detain soldiers of German origin who were suspected of being “insufficiently loyal.” In 1986, the Pentagon issued a memorandum about soldiers’ involvement in hate organizations, following reports that active-duty soldiers had been involved in the activities of the Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacist group.

A key moment in recent history was the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, where some veterans and active-duty military personnel with extreme right-wing and white supremacist views participated in the violent protest against the U.S. Capitol. This group accounted for 16% of those charged in the event.

Following the incident, U.S. Secretary of Defense Austin ordered the military to suspend training and focus on addressing extremism in the armed forces. A task force was established to revise the Uniform Code of Military Justice to explicitly define anti-government or anti-democratic behavior as violations for all military personnel. In January of the following year, the U.S. military also introduced a specific ban on military personnel engaging in extremist activities, including supporting terrorism, advocating for or supporting the overthrow of the government, providing funding to extremist groups, and posting, liking, sharing, or spreading extremist views on social media.

Extremist organizations aim to recruit individuals with military experience, hoping to leverage their professional training and expertise to strengthen their ranks. This has raised alarms among terrorism experts, who urge the U.S. Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to conduct more thorough and rigorous background checks when recruiting new soldiers or reviewing security clearances. For example, under the U.S. Army’s latest policy, recruits are prohibited from having face tattoos, and tattoo sizes are also restricted. Experts also emphasize the importance of closely monitoring those about to retire, who may be particularly vulnerable to recruitment by extremist groups.

Within the U.S. veteran community, some positive countermeasures are being implemented. Many veterans of the war on terror have joined the U.S. Veterans for Peace movement. These activists, deeply saddened by the immense losses caused by war, do not glorify military action and call for more support for veterans, organizing projects that help them connect their military backgrounds with a vision for a peaceful future. For example, they advocate for more solemn and respectful war memorial events to spread anti-war sentiments and reach a broader U.S. audience.

A “Political Football,” with Limited Results

Although the U.S. government has taken numerous measures to address the issue of extremism, these efforts have yielded limited results. One of the reasons is the political divide between the Democratic and Republican parties. The Hill reported that Secretary of Defense Austin “faced immense pressure from Republican members of Congress” during his efforts to tackle extremism in the military, as they viewed some of the measures aimed at addressing extremism as “political persecution.” From the perspective of Republicans, given the over 2 million active-duty and reserve military personnel and around 18 million veterans, the number of individuals with extreme views is very small, and extremism is not seen as a major issue within the military.

The Guardian reported that the series of measures announced by Austin in 2021 “ultimately failed.” In December 2023, Congressional Republicans effectively ended the work of the anti-extremism task force by cutting funding in the annual defense authorization bill. Earlier that year, CNN reported that the task force had “virtually disappeared” due to organized attacks by the so-called Republican “anti-woke movement.”

Just before the task force was disbanded, the U.S. Department of Defense Inspector General presented a report to Congress detailing 183 investigations into extremism within the military. These investigations included dozens of cases involving military personnel advocating, participating in, or supporting terrorism in the U.S. or abroad, as well as 14 cases of “advocating or participating in the illegal use of force or violence to achieve political, religious, discriminatory, or ideological objectives.” This report, which was published 18 months later than planned, largely downplayed the role of extremists within the military. Its main findings included: “No evidence suggests that the number of violent extremists within the military is disproportionately high compared to the overall population of violent extremists in the U.S.” and “No evidence suggests that civilians working in the Department of Defense are involved in violent extremism.”

However, an Associated Press investigation in November 2024 found that the data in this report was outdated and “severely underestimated” the number of active-duty military personnel and veterans arrested following the Capitol riot, providing a misleading description of the growing problem of military extremism.

Beirich of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism stated that while the U.S. has introduced a series of measures, the real issue lies in whether these measures are actually being enforced. “We don’t know if these measures are being implemented, or how many people have been punished for violating the rules. We don’t have reliable data from the Department of Defense, nor reliable information about the level of extremism within the military.” Beirich further expressed concern that the issue of military extremism has become a “political football” between the two parties, and she fears the situation could worsen if former Fox News host and Trump nominee for Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, is appointed again.

In Beirich’s view, the Pentagon has downplayed the significance of the extremism issue, and the Department of Veterans Affairs has failed to establish effective programs to help veterans who are more susceptible to extremist recruitment. Additionally, military branches lack unified standards and coordinated actions in addressing this problem.

Some analysts argue that solving this issue is not only the responsibility of the Department of Defense. Matt Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University, stated that the individuals committing criminal acts are mostly veterans, often honorably discharged. The key issue lies in how the government, particularly the Department of Veterans Affairs, addresses the broader societal problems that veterans face, such as access to healthcare, mental health care, social reintegration, and reemployment.

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Greenland

How Far is Greenland from the United States?

When U.S. President Trump expressed his desire to “purchase” Greenland during his...

Trump

The United States Withdraws from the UN Human Rights Council: A Crisis of Multilateralism

The United States officially announced its withdrawal from the UN Human Rights...

Hollywood Envoy

The Hollywood Envoy: Can It Save the American Story?

On January 16, before taking office, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that...

Starship

Can the United States Send Astronauts to Mars in Four Years?

On the 20th, during his inauguration speech, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed...