In February, when images of the violent assault on the Capitol in Washington were still fresh in Americans’ minds, newly confirmed Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin took an unprecedented step by signing a memorandum ordering commanders of the armed forces to impose a day of reflection on extremism in the armed forces of the nation.
The reflection retreat was a response to the participation and subsequent arrest of several war veterans and at least one active duty member, who along with thousands of supporters of then-President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol on January 6. United, in a riot that caused lawmakers to seek refuge, killed one person in a gunshot by Capitol police and caused millions of dollars in damage to the building largely regarded as the symbol of American democracy.
The Austin order, which also came as the entire United States was grappling with how to address systemic racism, was the latest of several efforts by the military over decades to purge its ranks of extremists and white supremacists. .
In response to the order, the military last week issued new rules for dealing with extremism, which included updating the policy on the use of social media. Under the new rules, now “liking” or streaming white supremacist or extremist content could result in disciplinary action. The Department of Defense has also updated its recruitment selection mechanisms and is looking at how to prepare retiring troops so that they are not targeted by extremist organizations.
Yet an AP investigation found that — despite new US forces guidelines on extremism — racism and discrimination remain a constant concern in the military.
AP research shows that the new guidelines do not address current disparities in military justice under the legal code that governs the United States armed forces, the so-called “Uniform Code of Military Justice.”
Numerous studies, including a report last year from the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) show that Hispanic or black service members were investigated and court-martialed in a manner that disproportionately larger. A recent study from the Naval Graduate School found that African-American Marines were convicted and court-martialed at a rate five times higher than other races in the United States Marine Corps.
The AP investigation also shows that the military justice system does not have an explicit category for hate crimes, something that the federal government, 46 states and the District of Columbia do have in their criminal codes, making it difficult to quantify crimes. hate crimes.
As a result, investigative agencies such as the Naval Criminal Investigation Service or the Army Criminal Investigation Division also do not have a specific category of hate crimes, which affects how they investigate cases.
“While hate crimes may have occurred, our investigations are not titled as such,” the Naval Criminal Investigation Service said in an email. “For example, an assault on a person, regardless of the motive for the assault, would be classified as assault … regardless of what motivated the crime,” he added.
The new National Defense Authorization Act enacted Monday by President Biden directs the Defense Secretary to make a recommendation to Congress within 180 days on whether a new statute is needed that addresses violent extremism, but does not address crime. hate nor racial disparities in military law.
The new Pentagon rules do not outright prohibit service members from belonging to extremist organizations, such as the Ku Klux Klan, Oath Keepers, or other right-wing and white supremacist groups. Regulations, like those above, only prohibit “active participation” in such groups, a shady policy that civil rights organizations have expressed concern about for years. The armed forces describe “active participation” as “demonstrating or meeting publicly, raising funds, recruiting and training members,” as well as organizing or leading organizations.
Experts interviewed by the AP say there is also constant concern about the military commander’s ability to enact a wide range of administrative and disciplinary actions, including administrative separation or appropriate criminal action, against military personnel engaged in prohibited activities.
Essentially, commanders have complete discretion in determining how to address situations as they arise, which experts say has created a patchy and scattered application, with some commanders establishing a zero-tolerance approach and others employing lax application of the rules.
The AP investigation also found that while the Defense Department says it considers racism and extremism within the military to be a “security concern,” it does not have dedicated funds that specifically support the fight against extremism. Instead, military officials said the Pentagon uses personnel vetting programs, training and education programs, and the Internal Threat Program to “contribute positively to countering extremism within the troop.”
The Pentagon did not respond to questions from the AP about how much money it has spent or budgeted for efforts related solely to diversity and inclusion, and how many employees are dedicated to it.
Pentagon spokesman Major César Santiago acknowledged in a statement to the AP that extremism and extremist ideology can have a massive effect on military force.
However, he added: “The vast majority of uniformed men and women serve their nation with honor and integrity.” He said that since taking office in January, Secretary Llyod Austin, the first African-American to serve as defense secretary, has taken immediate steps to address extremism. In addition to new guidelines on the subject, the Defense Department appointed an interim deputy inspector general in April to focus on diversity and inclusion issues and internal military threats.
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Intelligence Project Director Susan Corke praised the Defense Department for taking key steps this year, including changes announced last week, to address extremism. He stressed that the Department of Defense sought the experience of civil rights organizations, academics and others that have been sounding the alarm about the dangers of extremism in the troop for years.
However, Corke said it is too early to say definitively whether the strengthened policies will eliminate extremism from the military ranks.
“The devil will be in the details,” he said. “I appreciate that there is a commitment from the Department of Defense to have a lot more consultation with outside partners and that there is a lot more focus on doing additional investigations. So let’s put your feet in the fire. “
Corke said the SPLC continues to push for additional reforms, such as the way the army’s command structure allows commanders to have virtually absolute command authority over subordinates, which could deter its members from reporting incidents. or fears of extremism.
Even some military men agree that the military must do more. “There needs to be a change in action and behavior, elements that cannot be so easily influenced by a change in military law,” Major Tyrone Collier, a defense judge for the Marine Corps Reserve, said in a interview with the AP.
“Even if some legislation is passed from the highest levels of government saying they will do this and that, will it really be done?” Collier admitted.
.