First off, let us define extremism according to Oxford.

ex·trem·ism/ikˈstrēˌmizəm/

1. the holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism.

This baseline definition is fairly broad, and can be applied to many mainstream political beliefs in the Trump Era of American politics. What’s worse, is that the application of this definition can skew based on the ideology of the person applying it. Personally, I feel that it can be applied to a wide array of left/right beliefs, including but not limited to antifascism, white supremacy, antisemitism, and antiracism. Some of you are probably questioning if I am sympathetic to beliefs you find abhorrent or support, the truth is I find all of those beliefs to be counter to fundamental American values, but that is beside the point. The truth is, in the context of extremism in the military, some of those beliefs are entirely acceptable while others are not.

Depending on who you talk to, extremism in the military is either wide spread or a red-herring. To one end of the spectrum, the fact that some former and current members of the military were found to be in attendance at the January 6th Capitol Insurrection is confirmation of their fears that the military is made up of conspiracy theorists, racists, fascists, insert left wing trigger word here, or any other boogeyman they feel is out to get them. Others see it differently, that the military is made up of the best of what America is, patriots who stand at the ready to fight for American values, Liberty, White Jesus, and Cracker Barrel. The truth is probably more benign and nuanced that most people are currently willing to accept.

Let me be perfectly clear, I have known soldiers who held what could be considered to be “extremist” views. I’ve known an Staff Sergeant who was a Maxist, at least one Specialist who had been a member of the KKK (but turned his life around), and a LT who could easily be called an Anarchist, along with a pretty staggering amount of conspiracy theorists who genuinely believed that Hitler bugged out to the moon in 1945. Along with these people, I’ve known most soldiers to hold typically American political beliefs falling in the reasonable realm of liberalism and conservatism. In my experience, these people far outweigh the radicals who hold counter American viewpoints.

So when I heard that the new SecDef wanted to address “extremism” in the ranks, I was a bit puzzled. The Army prohibits soldiers from taking part in public marches or rallies, attending a meeting or activity that knowingly involves an extremist cause, distributing extremist literature, amongst a few other things. The other branches have similar policies. This has been enforced in certain situations involving soldiers who supported Islamist, hate groups, or communist causes, and rightly so. These ideals are antithetical to American values and have no place in the armed forces. We should continue to enforce these rules regardless of sexual orientation, cultural background, or political status. While I am sure there are some service members who fall into the category of extremists, the rest of us want those people removed from the DoD.

So what happens when a en vogue social just movement masquerading as progress comes to the forefront of social discussion and commentary in the United States as a whole?

What happens is we see Special Operations Command (SOCOM) created a civilian position within the command known as the “Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer”, in a command that simply must have the best that the U.S. military has to offer. Some would argue that diversity and inclusivity is necessary in the military to make it stronger, while others would say that the military is not the place for diversity or inclusivity because combat favors the strongest, smartest, most bold warriors, therefore those should be our priority and not race/gender/sexual orientation quotas. Should we prioritize kicking out people who demonstrate racism, sexism, misogyny? Of course. For that, we have Equal Opportunity Officers, to my knowledge at every command. But to claim that we must meet quotas for people with specific racial, sexual, and gender types, that seems incredibly short sighted. We should want to meet quotas for those who demonstrate a capacity that would make them best suited for the various specialties of warfare.

What does this have to do with extremism? It’s simple, my statement above could be considered by the very same people concerned about extremism to be evidence of such, because that is often what happens. The people who tend to hold a viewpoint counter to the fad of “diversity and inclusion” are often labeled as hateful, racist, sexist, all by those who adopted a particular belief deemed important by those who can think of nothing but race, sexual orientation and gender. You know, actual racist, sexist, and genderist individuals. Doesn’t that seem…extreme? To those of us who don’t care about those things so long as it doesn’t interfere with your ability to do the job, it’s downright terrifying.

Let’s talk about politics for a second. In an era where it is completely acceptable to throw around the Nazi epithet at anyone who wore a red hat for the last four years, those that supported a particular president are concerned about being labeled an extremist by those who believe otherwise. It’s so easy for the ignorant to think of Trump supporters as white-hood wearing Klansmen marching around burning crosses, because that is what members of a particular political party and their media partners have painted Trump as. In the military, things are no different. While it seems that service members tend to lean conservative, there are definitely those who adhere to the social justice view of the world, that every one and every thing is an element of white supremacy and historical slavery. This leads to a fracturing of the military similar to the one taking place in society as a whole.

While I will be the first to admit I am no fan of Donald Trump or how he conducted himself, to call the vast majority of conservatives who supported him racist or fascist or whatever buzzword comes to mind is foolhardy and lacks any nuance whatsoever. To insinuate those who vehemently disagree with the current “woke” trends, or don’t agree with progressives on matters of policy, or simply do not like the way these disagreements are heading are in some way extremists, is dangerous ground.

What about the soldier who supports the Antifascist movement, one rooted in the historical teachings of Marx and wielding anarchist symbols? What about the soldier who parrots the popular racism of Robin DiAngelo and I.X. Kendi? Sure, let’s expel the edge lord making anti-Semitic memes online, but how do we go about ridding ourselves of the soldiers who believe that America is a white supremacist country? That’s an objectively false narrative. How do we remove the soldiers who support a particular racial justice organization that is increasingly militant and in many ways antithetical to America? If we are to target extremists, why does it seem that the only extremists we can point to are the ones on one side of the political divide?

Who’s extremists are we targeting?

Quite frankly, I’d be completely OK with ridding the military of any sort of politically involved individuals. The military is designed to protect American interests and American policies, leave politics and activism to the civilians.