Extremism and Hate-motivated Violence among Active Duty Military, Veterans, and Civilians
The academic interest in the subject of extremism among both active-duty service members and veterans took on a new level of scrutiny in light of the January 6th Capitol riot. Empirical evidence was used by a number of prominent researchers to evidence the claim that veterans and active duty military are more prone to extremism. The problem, however, was that there is no legal definition upon which to organize the assessment of extremism. The result was that there was a great deal of latitude to interpret data and advance claims that right wing extremism in the active-duty service members and veterans was a significant problem. The findings, however, suggested a different story.
This research reviewed the databases that purported to support the finding that veterans are more likely than the general population to engage in politically motivated violence. The evaluation of these databases revealed that there is disparity in the statistical evidence among the databases used to support the claim that veterans are more likely than the general population to engage in politically motivated violence. The statistical variation is driven by several factors, including the use of indeterminate definitions of extremism used to capture the data, selective inclusion and exclusion of extremist events as well as reliance on internet reporting of events that is inconsistent across the time period that purports to support the rise in veteran extremism. Ultimately, the research did not find that veterans are any more likely than the general population to engage in politically motivated violence and that continued promotion of this narrative is damaging to the veteran community and is not productive for understanding the rise in political violence that is occurring more generally in society.
A second focus of this research was to deploy a thousand person survey of veterans. The survey, conducted by Amerispeak, explored the issue of extremism and the perceptions of it across groups and institutions in society. Because extremism is not a precise term and possesses no legal definition, the survey was designed to better understand how extremism is viewed by a group often characterized as susceptible to it. In addition to this survey, one on one interviews were conducted with veterans who identified as leaning left, right and center. The initial findings reveal that there are many groups and institutions in society that are perceived as staking out extreme positions or engaging in extremist actions. Extremism was attributed to government, academia and other groups in society, especially when these institutions were motivated by ideology rather than the intended mission. This research was presented to Deputy Director of the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, Daniel J Lecce.
The claim that right wing extremism was rampant among active duty military and veterans led to detrimental consequences and flawed findings without careful consideration of the evidence. The Department of Defense (DOD) in February 2021 was even prompted to issue a “stand-down” order to address “extremism” in the ranks. (Mitchell, 2021) without substantial evidence to do so. Later, the claim of extremism among active duty military was largely debunked by a study conducted by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA). Nearly two years after the stand-down order issued by the DOD and the uproar surrounding it, the IDA found no evidence that the number of violent extremists in the military is “disproportionate” to U.S. society. In fact, a review of Pentagon data suggested “fewer than 100 substantiated cases per year of extremist activity by members of the military in recent years.” (Editorial Board, 2024) On the question of military participation in January 6, the report says “of the more than 700 federal cases in which charges were publicly available a year after these events, fewer than ten” were in the military at the time. Further, there was “no evidence that service members were charged at a different rate than the members of the general population.” (Editorial Board, 2024)
Group Members:
Lisa Nelson