{"id":21801,"date":"2021-06-18T13:00:26","date_gmt":"2021-06-18T13:00:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/navytimes\/uncategorized\/2021\/06\/18\/pentagons-extremism-definition-will-have-to-find-the-line-between-free-speech-and-unit-cohesion\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T06:03:21","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T06:03:21","slug":"pentagons-extremism-definition-will-have-to-find-the-line-between-free-speech-and-unit-cohesion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/navytimes\/news\/pentagon-congress\/2021\/06\/18\/pentagons-extremism-definition-will-have-to-find-the-line-between-free-speech-and-unit-cohesion\/","title":{"rendered":"Pentagon\u2019s extremism definition will have to find the line between free speech and unit cohesion"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

U.S. intelligence agencies<\/a> have for several years been telling anyone who will listen that for a long time now, the biggest terrorist threat to the country is domestic extremists, particularly of the right-wing variety<\/a>. That threat came into sharp focus on Jan. 6, especially for the Pentagon, as it became clear that dozens of veterans<\/a> and current service members <\/a>were among the mob of President Donald Trump supporters that forced its way into the Capitol in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 election for President Joe Biden.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defense Department officials have said many times since that leadership believes the number of extremists in the military is small<\/a>, though more than what they\u2019re comfortable with, given the disastrous effects just one ill-intentioned person in uniform <\/a>can have.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what turns someone\u2019s feelings and beliefs from strongly held to extreme, and who decides where the line is?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Answering those questions has been a struggle for the Pentagon, but developing definitions<\/a> is vital, military leaders say.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI think it\u2019s key to help define what we consider to be extremism\u201d Army Gen. Richard Clarke, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, told Military Times on May 19. \u201cBecause in this space, we don\u2019t need to be ambiguous.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Actions affecting unit cohesion should be a prime consideration in defining extremism, experts tell Military Times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe issue is performance,\u201d Brian Michael Jenkins<\/a>, a senior adviser at Rand Corp. and a former Special Forces officer, told Military Times on May 10. \u201cAnd that is, to what extent may these beliefs, whatever they are, interfere with the mission of the military? Are they such that they might disrupt unit cohesion? Are they such that they will actually interfere with effective military action, whatever the job is?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That could include bigoted beliefs about ethnic groups, religions or countries of origin, up to and including the political belief that the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden is not a legitimate commander in chief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To that end, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in April tasked a working group with creating a new definition of extremism <\/a>for the department, one that will update current guidance that allows troops to belong to groups like the Ku Klux Klan or Earth Liberation Front, as long as they don\u2019t participate in any planning, fundraising or other coordinated activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMost of the most of the actual attacks that we\u2019ve seen, over the past decade or more anyway, are perpetrated by individuals, not groups,\u201d Seth Jones, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Military Times on May 7, despite any online activity or sympathies that would suggest an affinity for one or more groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are some obvious red lines, Jones said, that commanders can use when considering whether someone in their formation is a concern; threatening or advocating the use of violence against individuals or groups is an easy one.<\/p>\n\n\n\t