DHS Report of ‘Rightwing’ Extremist Threats
Apr 16 2009
Summary
This week has seen an uproar across the web and from some in Congress over the publication of a Department of Homeland Security threat assessment regarding right-wing extremists. The part of the report that has been picked up on by conservatives appears on page 7 under the title ‘Disgruntled Military Veterans’. You can view the entire threat assessment here.
Here is just a snippet of the report, which was produced by DHS’s Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, in coordinated with the FBI:
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremist—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.
Analysis
The report goes on to say that an FBI report from 2008 showed that some returning veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have joined up with White Supremacist groups. While it may contain some amount of truth, it is also clearly not intended to be an indictment of all veterans. The job of DHS is to protect Americans from all threats and the purpose of this particular report was to warn against the possibility of the rise in rhetorical opposition to the federal government coming from right-wing groups turning violent. While Timothy McVeigh, who was cited as an example in the report, is certainly not in any way representative of veterans, DHS mentions his case as the most obvious threat that actually happened in the past
Unfortunately, the political climate in recent years has made it difficult to have an objective discussion of important issues without having the discussion politicized by those on the political right or political left, or both.
Reaction to the Report
Some in congress are now using it as a platform to rail against the new DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. In some cases, the purpose of the report and the mission of the DHS are being distorted.
Some examples, from the Associated Press:
“To characterize men and women returning home after defending our country as potential terrorists is offensive and unacceptable,” said [House Republican leader John] Boehner, R-Ohio.
Texas Rep. Lamar Smith accused the department of painting “law-abiding Americans, including war veterans, as ‘extremists.’”
American Legion commander David Rehbein spoke out against the report and requested a meeting with Secretary Napolitano in a letter issued to the press:
The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation’s uniform during wartime. To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical “disgruntled military veteran” is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam.
The full letter can be found here.
Veterans of Foreign Wars commander Glen M. Gardner Jr responded by taking issue with the way the report has been perceived:
“The report should have been worded differently, but it made no blanket accusation that every soldier was capable of being a traitor like Benedict Arnold, or every veteran could be a lone wolf, homegrown terrorist like Timothy McVeigh,” said Gardner, a Marine veteran from Round Rock, Texas. ” It was just an assessment about possibilities that could take place.”
The VFW full response can be found here.
DHS Secretary Napolitano responded with a press release late yesterday:
The primary mission of this department is to prevent terrorist attacks on our nation. The document on right-wing extremism sent last week by this department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis is one in an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States. I was briefed on the general topic, which is one that struck a nerve as someone personally involved in the Timothy McVeigh prosecution.
Let me be very clear: we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States. We don’t have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence.
We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not – nor will we ever – monitor ideology or political beliefs. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources.
I am aware of the letter from American Legion National Commander Rehbein, and my staff has already contacted him to set up a meeting next week once I return from travel. I will tell him face-to-face that we honor veterans at DHS and employ thousands across the department, up to and including the Deputy Secretary.
As the department responsible for protecting the homeland, DHS will continue to work with its state and local partners to prevent and protect against the potential threat to the United States associated with any rise in violent extremist activity.
Conclusions
The main threat assessment from DHS could have been presented in a different way to make a strong statement about the fact that only an extremely small percentage of veterans become radicalized and lesser still have ever turned to violence. That being said, ignoring any possible source of anti-government violence would be doing a disservice to their mission. The wartime environment we are living in right now, between the economic downturns, the historic election of Barack Obama, the continuing threat from foreign terrorists and the deepening ideological divide between the progressive and conservative sides of society, all demand that vigilance be heightened in every direction.
It is all well and good to say that there was no implications in the message, however there was. I do not feel that I am an arch conservative but I am certainly not a liberal. I was offended by the language of the report as were many others.
Letting this type of report be released shows a serious lack of command leadership at the top of the department. In my experience in DC and working with DoD HA if I had let something like this get published my next duty station (if I had one) would have been LORSTA Attu or equal.
That’s lovely but what about the comment that the American Legion should be classified as a “hate group” because of their stance on immigration reform…is that also a distortion?
Let’s face it, this administration has absolutely no concept of what it is to be a military member nor a veteran of military service. They are looking down their noses at us and plan to keep us at arms length lest we be one of those “small, small minority” that just might be a tad too conservative for them. See the requirements that military credit unions go into the red to help bail out civilian credit unions not run properly or the suggestion that vets pay for treatment of service disabilities…some seriously quick back pedaling on that one.
While MOAA must maintain balance and TRY to work with this administration and Congress let’s be honest, they don’t really like us and they don’t really understand us and they don’t really care much despite all the lip service.
Thank you for your comments and for expressing your views. While this blog strives to only present the facts with a small amount of commentary and analysis, it was difficult to do so without being more critical of the report.
Mrs. Richey wrote: “While MOAA must maintain balance and TRY to work with this administration and Congress…”
This is an important statement. We feel that it is critical that we make our cases directly to Congress or the Administration based on policy implications of legislation, and what is best for the military. Getting involved directly in a back and forth argument over the contents of a report that does not have direct implications for pay, benefits and quality of life for our service members would tend to reduce our effectiveness on those issues.
I would add that the Obama administration has taken the time to meet with MOAA and other service groups regarding budget initiatives and has responded with impressive results, as detailed in the VA 3rd party issue highlighted here.
Could it be that left wing “extremists will attempt to recruit” DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano “in order to exploit the willingness of some” political appointees to disparage servicemen? “Since the” late 1960′s “willingness to join extremist groups….because they were disgruntled … is being replicated today.”