The Enemy Within: Radicalization, Extremism, and the Profession of Arms

Abstract

There is a long history of military members engaging in acts of political extremism and the problem has grown in recent years. Because the military is responsible for carrying out violence on behalf of the state, servicemembers must undergo socialization into the military culture and train to engage in combat. With this necessary embrace of a militant culture and acquisition of combat skills, it is perhaps unsurprising that military members would be involved in political violence. This raises several questions regarding extremism and military personnel. First, what aspects of military service and culture may explain the association between military members and political extremism? Existing theories of radicalization and extremism do not sufficiently explain this correlation, requiring further exploration. Furthermore, both servicemembers’ experiences and the rates of extremism differ across and within the military branches. How do servicemembers’ unique experiences within the military help explain why some servicemembers radicalize while others do not? To answer these questions, I introduce a novel database of instances of military extremism, the Military Extremist Database, and the Social Theory of Military Extremism, which argues the profession of arms involves many experiences associated with extremism that may increase the risk of radicalization among servicemembers; differences across and within the military branches affect the degree of impact these factors have on an individual servicemember and thus their likelihood of radicalization. First, through socialization into the hypermasculine military culture, servicemembers adopt a martial identity defined by a warrior ethos. This identity heightens perceptions of group threats, increases willingness to use violence, and is associated with extremist ideologies like white supremacy, conspiratorial thinking, and religious fundamentalism. The militant warrior ethos also imbues a sense of separation, superiority, or even supremacy relative to the civilian public. These effects are particularly strong among the Marine Corps and the Special Forces community. Second, military culture fosters a form of “band of brothers” social cohesion which is also associated with extremism. Strong social bonds drive an in-group/out-group mentality, facilitate group deviancy, provide opportunities for connection with extremist individuals, and create avenues for recruitment into extremist organizations. This research shows Army and Air Force combat personnel are more likely to join extremist organizations and extremists from the Marine Corps are most likely to have social ties to other radicalized Marines. Third, the government entrusts the military to carry out violence on its behalf and combat is a significant part of military culture. Training for and engaging in combat relies on dehumanization, disengagement of moral barriers, and desensitization to violence, all of which are associated with extremism. This analysis demonstrates servicemembers who train for combat are more likely to be extremists than those who train for non-combat positions, whether they engage in combat or not. Individuals who participate in combat are more likely to be extremist than non-combat servicemembers. Lastly, combat-related post-traumatic stress is associated with an increased likelihood of extremism among military personnel. Finally, the Department of Defense cites the oath of office and its fidelity to the Constitution as a bulwark against extremist activity. The military, however, is failing to adequately educate its members on the oath, which has turned it into a liability. This is particularly true for the Navy and Marine Corps. Extremist organizations and bad actors are manipulating the oath to entice military members towards extremist activity. To adequately combat extremism within the ranks, and after, the Department of Defense needs a multifaceted approach that addresses each of these concerns This research provides policy recommendations to tackle the problem of extremism while preserving the military’s ability to carry out is mission of national defense.