Today, Explained - The military’s far-right problem

Episode Date: January 27, 2021

Sen. Tammy Duckworth wants the military to do a better job of rooting out extremism in its ranks. A military investigator explains how to solve a decades-old problem. Transcript at vox.com/todayexplained. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Get groceries delivered across the GTA from Real Canadian Superstore with PC Express. Shop online for super prices and super savings. Try it today and get up to $75 in PC Optimum Points. Visit superstore.ca to get started. On December 7th, 1995, a 36-year-old named Michael James and a 27-year-old named Jackie Burden were walking down the street in their neighborhood in Fayetteville, North Carolina, when they ran into three soldiers. The soldiers, who were all members of the 82nd Airborne Division stationed nearby Fort Bragg, opened fire on James and Burden. They executed them solely because they were black.

Prosecutors in the case said two of the soldiers, both in their early 20s, were neo-Nazi skinheads who had been drinking and decided to drive around town and look for some black people to murder at random. The case was so shocking, it led the U.S. Army to conduct a worldwide investigation into racism in its ranks. They found that of 7,600 soldiers interviewed, fewer than 100 belonged to white supremacist groups, but something like three and a half percent of soldiers had been asked to join an extremist group since joining the army. 22 soldiers in the 82nd Airborne Division alone, an elite group, had links to skinhead groups. All this is to say that far-right extremism in the military is nothing new. So maybe an NPR study that found that one in five

of the insurrectionists at the Capitol three weeks ago today were active duty or retired military should come as no surprise. Nor should it surprise us that there have been renewed calls to investigate and root out extremism in the United States Armed Forces. The question is, will it work this time? To find out, we got in touch with Senator Tammy Duckworth, who's been leading the charge and is a veteran herself who once received the Purple Heart. Senator Duckworth, why did you want to be out in front of this issue right now? I was really deeply troubled by the reports that service members and military retirees possibly engaged in a January 6th insurrection against the authority of our nation and attempted

to prevent and hinder and delay the execution of my constitutional duty, which was the electoral count. And as we have more days away from that January 6th date, we're seeing more and more evidence of military men and women, both actively serving as well as those who are retired, who did participate. So that's why I went to the investigation because if the criminal investigators

determine that these reports are true, then I think the DOD must take action immediately to hold these individuals accountable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but also that we need to root out extremists that infiltrate the military and threaten our national security. Can you tell me how the military has dealt with this really old problem in the past? Well, they've dealt with it in the past, but it wasn't consistent, right? There wasn't carry- through throughout since that time, which is why you're seeing it happening again now. And you're also seeing what's happening now, which I don't think the military has dealt

with very well, is how young troops consume media at this point. With the rise of social media, you have young troops who are consuming media in a way that it is very pointed and one-sided, that they're getting their news and what they believe is news from websites like Parler and these type of places. So they're not getting unbiased, accurate news. And the military, I don't think, has done a very good job of working on that particular issue. So yes, they've been successful dealing with this in the past, but I just don't think there's been consistency over time. And we have a real problem now. And I want to know how big a problem we have and we need to fix it. So how do you think the military should go about rooting out this particular brand of extremism and white supremacy

and the sort of allegiance to alt-right media, even whatever it might be in 2021? Well, I think what needs to happen is really, this is basic troop leadership. This is basically at the unit level and leaders that soldiers look up to, their squad leaders, their platoon sergeants, their lieutenants, their company commanders, speaking with them, getting the training that's needed on what it means to have true allegiance to the United States, which your oath of office truly means, what adhering to white supremacy, how that counters your oath of office and how that endangers your unit going forward. This can't be something that just comes out of the Pentagon. You know, a four-star general says,

okay, do this. And then, you know, everybody's like, oh, great. Now we have to comply with this, but we don't really believe it. This has to be carried out at the individual small unit leadership level in order to reverse the trend. How do you go about rooting out something as intangible as extremist thought, extremist belief? I mean, what can you do other than ask some honest questions like, are you a white supremacist? And then, you know, hope you get an honest answer. Well, I also think it's beyond what people come into the service with. I think, you know, we train people to fly helicopters and repair tanks, right? But we don't teach them how to be, you know, good civic citizens. And I think that's part of what needs to be taught. We need to teach them how to consume media as well. And so we haven't fielded a team

against what the white supremacists are doing to try to recruit these young people in the military. We've not put up an opposing message to their message. And that's part of what needs to be done is the Pentagon needs to go in there and we need to provide that opposing message. And it has to come from the immediate leaders that these troops truly, you know, trust and believe in and value. So it's the squad leader or the platoon sergeant is's going to say, you know what, that's wrong. You know, what that's saying is wrong and it makes our force weaker and it's bad for good order and discipline. You're not going to do that. Okay, so we're sort of talking theoretically down the road, but what consequences do you think there should be for active military who were taking part in the insurrection at the Capitol? Well, there are real consequences under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

And I believe that anybody that falls under the UCMJ's jurisdiction should be brought forward and dealt with under the UCMJ. And by the way, recently retired military officers can be recalled back to face a trial under the UCMJ should they have participated in the insurrection. So that is the first step is to determine who was there and then to bring all of those who participated and bring them back to face a trial and punishment under the UCMJ itself. And that will send a very strong message to the troops. Yeah. It sounds like you are of the mind that there wasn't enough being done beforehand or there wasn't effective enough strategies being put in place to prevent something like this from happening. And unfortunately, it took an attack on the federal government, on American soil, at the Capitol for everyone to really take notice. Would you agree?

Yeah, I think we took our eyes off the ball. But I think some of this, we've also seen some of the trend lines. If you look at the special forces community, for example, you've seen President Trump pardon Eddie Gallagher and these war criminals and really validated really bad behavior. And we've had problems within the special forces community, partially because of the tempo, the operational tempo that they've been under for 19 years. We need to bring good order and discipline back. They've been drifting away from that, and we need to bring them back. And similarly, under the rest of the DOD, you know, with the

op tempo that they've been under, the military just hasn't had time to focus on that because they've been focused on fighting terrorism and the folks who would harm us. Now we need to bring, you know, the focus back to this issue. And unfortunately, it took January 6th to make it very clear that we have a real problem on our hands. I'm glad you brought up the presidential pardons. I wanted to ask about that. I mean, in a way, it felt like confirmation of a feeling that people in this country can have that the military is a third rail. It's beyond reproach. You're not allowed to criticize service members for what they've done abroad or in this case, maybe even at home. Do you think as the memory of the Capitol insurrection fades, there will be an actual appetite for introspection and potentially

even prosecution of service members and even retired service members if needed? I think there will be. And I think that servicemen and women are the ones who truly care about the security of this country will want it as well. I will tell you that, for example, when I was in Iraq in 2003, 2004, and Abu Ghraib happened and all of that abuse happened. The other soldiers and myself and my unit were furious because those troops who conducted those war crimes put the rest of us in danger with the enemy. Because they acted not in accordance with the Geneva Convention, which sent the message to our enemies that, hey, should you capture an American, you can do the same. And this is what's happening. Bad behavior among our troops now sends a message to our adversaries around the world that they can similarly act in that way. And so good troops who truly care about the Constitution and their oaths of office will

want these people to be brought forward and to face justice because this is a rot from within the military that we cannot allow to spread. And do you think that's a message that will, you know, find sympathy on both sides of the aisle? I think so. I think so. And, you know, I have colleagues that I work with on the other side of the aisle who are themselves veterans. And I think they feel the same way. I think they were as shocked as I was to see, you know, retired Lieutenant Colonels carrying zip ties, looking for senators and congressmen and members of Congress. Yeah. But you also have colleagues who went right back to work that day and continued to perpetuate lies. Yeah. And we're calling them out on it.

Senator Duckworth, I really appreciate your time. Thank you. My pleasure. Thanks for having me on. Quick break, and then we're going to hear from a guy who's conducted the kinds of military investigations Senator Duckworth is calling for right now. Support for Today Explained comes from Aura. Aura believes that sharing pictures is a great way to keep up with family. And Aura says it's never been easier thanks to their digital picture frames. They were named the number one digital photo frame by Wirecutter. Aura frames make it easy to share unlimited photos and videos directly from your phone to the frame.

When you give an Aura frame as a gift, you can personalize it. You can preload it with a thoughtful message, maybe your favorite photos. Our colleague Andrew tried an AuraFrame for himself. So setup was super simple. In my case, we were celebrating my grandmother's birthday. And she's very fortunate. She's got 10 grandkids. And so we wanted to surprise her with the AuraFrame.

And because she's a little bit older, it was just easier for us to source all the images together and have them uploaded to the frame itself. And because we're all connected over text message, it was just so easy to send a link to everybody. You can save on the perfect gift by visiting AuraFrames.com to get $35 off Aura's best-selling Carvermat frames with promo code EXPLAINED at checkout. That's A-U-R-A frames dot com promo code EXPLAINED. This deal is exclusive to listeners and available just in time for the holidays. Terms and conditions do apply. The all-new FanDuel Sportsbook and Casino is bringing you more action than ever.

Want more ways to follow your faves? Check out our new player prop tracking with real-time notifications. Or how about more ways to follow your faves? Check out our new player prop tracking with real time notifications. Or how about more ways to customize your casino page with our new favorite and recently played games tabs. And to top it all off, quick and secure withdrawals. Get more everything with FanDuel Sportsbook and Casino. Gambling problem? Call 1-866-531-2600. Visit connectsontario.ca. Carter Smith served in the armed forces. I did. I did. I did 20 years, eight months, and two and a half days just in case there was any off time that I missed or something like that. Sometime after that, he served as a military investigator. We discovered criminal gangs in the early 90s at Fort Campbell and as a result decided to dig a little further, see what else there was that evolved into investigating gangs

and extremist groups. So when I asked him how far back extremism in the military goes, I expected to hear something about maybe the 50s or 60s, but he went back further, much, much further. So, it depends on your history and your understanding or interpretation of history. I mean, some would say that the Revolutionary War that started our country was extremism, right? I do know that on this continent, at least, on the North American continent, in what is now Massachusetts, a young man named Ebenezer McIntosh ran a group called the SouthEnders. And I consider them an original gang for our country, but it was before they were our country. And he had military training. He was

in the militia and he ran the SouthEnders against their rivals, the NorthEnders, go figure. But the thing was, he was also the leader of the Southenders when they had the Boston Tea Party. Remember Taxation Without Representation in the history books? That one I remember. That was him and his gang. So was that domestic terrorist extremist group? I don't know. They were rebelling against taxes. What would they be called if it was in 2020, 2021, right? They'd be considered extremists. So he was a little bit of a gang and a little bit of an extremist group. Fast forward about 70, 80 years after the Mexican-American War. There was a group of gang members that were recruited into the military in New York City and they were called the hounds and they joined the military and

they went and fought the Mexican-American War in of all places Mexico and back then the geography and logistics weren't the same as they are now and they had a pre-ranged agreement when the war was over they would be released to what was now considered California, a part of the territory of the United States. They were released into a place, and I don't speak Spanish well, but it was Yerba Buena, which means good herb, which became San Francisco a year later.

And they got nothing to do, except they know discipline, and they know enforcement, and they became the de facto security in the absence of a police force. The biggest problem was this was gold rush time, so you had ships from all over the place bringing in supplies for the people that wanted to go hunt down their treasure. By 1849, the rivers and streams were lined with miners searching for flakes and nuggets of placer gold that could be mined with simple tools. Tent cities sprang up overnight to supply the needs of the miners, and gold became the magic word that changed the history of our nation. There were up to 400 ships stuck in San Francisco Bay because the sailors on the ships, they said, oh yeah, captain, I'll help you take that stuff

to San Francisco and then I'll help you offload it. Well, they lied about the last part because they just wanted a free ride to the gold mines. So you have these ships, imagine semi-trucks right now blocking the entrance to your city, USA. It's the very similar thing. These ships were stuck in the bay in San Francisco and they couldn't go in, they couldn't get out. So the hounds were hired as security to go track down these sailors so they would offload the ships so the ships could get out, so more ships could come in. And they were paid 25 bucks a head to go get these guys, and that was their security detail. And that evolved to where they called themselves the San Francisco Society of Regulators.

But then they started beating up, like literally hurting, Peruvians and Mexicans that were in that area, and many of whom had lived in that area for a very long time, because they were going after the gold before these guys' friends or whatever could get in there into the gold mines. And if you use today's definitions, they would be now considered white nationalists. Wow. Who, in my book, and FBI's book and Homeland Security's book, qualifies as a domestic terrorist

extremist. Okay, so that's like a, you know, almost what 200 year old history lesson there. Bingo. Bingo. At what point does this start to look like something that maybe people might recognize a little more? Yeah, Timothy McVeigh, 1995. April 19, 1995. A Ryder rental truck with 5,000 pounds of explosives ripped through the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. 168 people were killed, 19 children among them. I thought, who has come in here and done this terrible thing?

The indictment charges that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, former Army buddies with a grudge against the government, planned the bombing, selected the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City as their target, bought and stole materials for the bomb, and built it. Bombing in Oklahoma City was an attack on innocent children and defenseless citizens. It was an act of cowardice and it was evil. And then you get McVeigh, yeah, who, I gotta tell you, McVeigh didn't do anything that he couldn't have done without military training. My two cents is McVeigh could have just as well been some, dare I say, dumbass redneck from who knows where in America and learned enough.

Even back in the 90s, he could have learned enough at the library or online to do what he could. McVeigh was an example that the military has never and will never be able to brainwash us. And it's also really easy to hide your ideology when you are being interviewed along with thousands of other people to come into an organization that is employing millions. But after McVeigh and this incident with the murderous white supremacists in the 82nd Airborne in the 90s, what steps did the military take? I mean, yes, they investigate, but what preventative measures are taken? They said in 96-ish, I think it was, they said, you know, yes, we went out and we saw, we talked to people who had been

approached. We talked to people who have been interacting with extremists and it's bad. But there's a gang problem here that we are not paying attention to that is significantly worse. It's almost like going there for bread and coming back with chocolate and ice cream. They were told by the secretary of the army, go out and tell me how big the extremist problem is. And they came back and they said, yeah, yeah, yeah, there's a bit of a problem, but you got to focus on this thing over here. So they maybe prioritize gangs over, say, far-right extremists enlisting in the military. But what do they do about either one? Anything proactive? They run background checks. Honestly, I think that's all they're ever going to be able to do. I'll tell you my background check.

They talked to a dozen people that I had grown up with. Now, there was nothing in my background, but had there been something in my background, it would have been with the people they were talking to. You tell me. Are they going to tell on me? Right. I mean, your acquaintance is probably not. In the grand scheme of things, a small percentage of criminals get caught.

Hell, half the crimes don't even get reported. So a fraction of them get caught, prosecuted, et cetera. The reality of it is what we have to have is a culture where people are not going to be silent when their new roommate brings in a flag or a swastika on his underwear or something like that, right? Yeah. We know one in five of the Capitol insurrectionists were former or active duty military. Do we have any idea, do we have any data about how much extremism is in the military? Or if they had that data, would they be, you know, rooting it all out? The military has for many years said that the gang problem, which to them has almost always included street gangs,

outlaw motorcycle gangs, and domestic terrorist extremists, the gang problem is less than 1% of the military. It's less than 2% of the age group in the civilian community, depending on who you're talking to as well, but you're minimizing the problem instead of addressing it. If you tell me there's less than 1% of cyanide in this drink and you offer it to me, am I drinking it? Yes or no? I don't think that there's a large, relatively large problem in the military, but what problem does exist needs to be addressed and often isn't. If you are superior to somebody or subordinate to somebody, you're familiar with this way of working things. I don't approach my supervisor with a problem

unless I offer him or her a corresponding solution. It works well in marriage too. Right. Good to know. I don't know that there's a fix other than it's like crime prevention. Crime prevention is a misnomer. How about crime maintenance? That's the way. Because crime doesn't go away. You know, there's always that possibility.

And so let's call it maintenance of criminality, not prevention of criminality. And as someone who's investigated this stuff, how do you think the military should maintain or manage or police it? I think we would have to employ a force larger than anything we've got just to either try to prevent or monitor, whichever you want to do, the actions and behaviors that don't amount to criminality of a bunch of people in the military. I, A, don't know that that's possible, and I, B, don't recommend my tax dollars be used for that. The reality of it is we cannot punish people for their thoughts. The reality of it is if I, and I don't,

but if I spend my time surfing the internet for fill-in-the-blank activity that you don't like, it can be anything from pornography to reading blogs by people who like dogs to reading whatever. Anything that annoys you, if you prevent me from doing it, you're expending way more manpower or time than is probably worth it if you're my supervisor. How about this? You just tell me behavior of this nature, one, two, three, four, five, is not allowed in my employ. And if you behave in such a way, not think, if you behave in this way, you will be terminated and prosecuted if it's within our power to do so.

If you're not consistent in carrying out those, dare I say, threats or promises, then you're the problem. They aren't. Hmm. I mean, we heard Senator Duckworth earlier in the show urge the military to use existing mechanisms to hold extremists accountable. Sounds like you're advocating for the same thing. Oh, yeah. I will adjust that just a little bit.

Start using them because you haven't been the whole stinking time we've had a problem. So you don't think they need to have new mechanisms? Oh, Lord, no. You think they just need to use the existing ones? New laws have never been necessary. How about you tell people don't do this or there will be consequences and then give them consequences? Carter Smith is a criminal justice professor at Middle Tennessee State University.

I'm Sean Romsferm. This is Today Explained. Thank you.