Page: Military targets extremism in the ranks

When I heard that the Pentagon had updated its rules of conduct to root out extremism in the wake of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, I thought, it’s about time.

My mind raced back to my own Army experiences near the end of the Vietnam War era and the brief talk on color consciousness that our training company commander gave us.

“The Army,” he declared, “does not favor any color but red, white and blue.”

Good training restrained me from trying to remind him that “white” is a racial color, too.

After all, he was guided not only by good intentions but also military necessity. It was the late 1960s, after all. Racial and political tensions on the streets were turning up in the military.

Violent clashes at Camp Lejeune in 1969 and Travis Air Force Base in 1971, among other locations, prompted the Pentagon to take its deepest examination of race relations since President Harry Truman desegregated the military in 1948.

Interestingly, the worst of these conflicts tended to occur far from the front lines of combat. Closer to the action, as a wise old saying put it, “There are no bigots in foxholes.”

Yet it is the cordial camaraderie and heroic sacrifices that make me feel proud of my service — and infuriated about the service members and veterans who took up bear spray, flagpoles, police shields and other weapons to beat up police and vandalize the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Of the more than 700 individuals charged by the Justice Department in connection with the Capitol breach, at least 81 are current or former members of the armed services, according to a CBS News analysis.

That revelation led to a reckoning at the Pentagon over extremism in the ranks. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin issued a memorandum in February that directed commanding officers and supervisors at all levels to hold a one-day “stand down,” a pause in operations, to address the challenge of right-wing extremism in the military.

That rang a bell with me. Back in April 2009, experts at the Department of Homeland Security drew political fire for a warning to police departments that proved to be prescient.

“Right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat,” the DHS experts wrote. “These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists — including lone wolves or small terrorist cells — to carry out violence.”

But instead of responding with some positive action, Republican politicians and right-wing media lambasted then-President Barack Obama and other Democrats.

Why? Supposedly for disrespecting loyal, hardworking service personnel and possibly hoping to suppress conservatives. Considering how conservative media and their movement tried to blame the Capitol attack on the lefty antifa movement, which the FBI denied, I won’t be surprised if they try to suppress the Pentagon’s actions, too.

For now, we have been learning from the House Select Committee investigation of the Capitol attack that the “lone wolves” and “small terrorist cells” scenario is looking obsolete. Instead, we’re learning of surprisingly large networks of social-network-connected groups and individuals looking for their next battle.

With all that in mind, I appreciate the Pentagon’s new rules, released Dec. 20, to clarify what is allowed and what isn’t in the long-standing ban against “active participation” in extremist activities or groups by service members.

For example, they’re free to read or possess extremist materials but can’t particulate, fund or support one — even with a “like” on Facebook.

Yet, Rep. Anthony Brown, a Maryland Democrat and retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel, raises an important point by questioning why known members of extremist groups should be allowed to serve at all, “with or without active participation.”

Good question. The rules could be changed again and maybe they will. But for now, I’m pleased to see military leaders try to protect constitutional freedoms, even for those who might want to deny those freedoms to others.

Clarence Page is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune.

You can send letters to the editor to letters@pressdemocrat.com.