Relation between Domestic Terrorism and the US Armed Forces in the Mid-90s - Case Study Example

This paper will discuss the relation between domestic terrorism and armed forces in the U.S. in mid-90s Domestic terrorism of University Introduction Various recent events, most particularly the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in April, 1995, and the racially motivated murders of two civilians by active-duty United States Army personnel in Fayetteville, North Carolina in December, 1995, have focused the attention and suspicion of both military and civilian authorities on the possibility that extremist and potentially terroristic elements have established themselves within the Armed Forces of our country. This paper will review the historical and contemporary trends of domestic terrorism within the United States as a means of establishing the similarities that exist between domestic extremist/terrorist groups. We will then discuss the ways in which military personnel may be influenced, involved or utilized by extremist and /or terrorist organizations or groups in pursuing and accomplishing their ultimate goals through these service members. Historical Review Domestic terrorism has existed and influenced the political and social structure of the United States, to varying degrees, since this countrys inception. The United States Department of Justice defines domestic terrorism as: “The unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”1 Historically there have been limited cases or incidents of domestic terrorism in which active duty military personnel have been involved or implicated, most probably due to the rigid structure and character of the military environment. Although terrorism has plagued governments, and public and private institutions for centuries in one form or another, its application and the strategies associated with it have evolved as surely as the societies upon which it is imposed. Technological advances particularly in the transportation, communication and weapons field, have facilitated the abilities of modern-day domestic terrorist groups to get their message out and has improved their capacity to take violent action to achieve their goals. Recent incidents, particularly the Weaver family incident at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and the incident at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas, have brought into question the extent to which government interdiction of armed citizen groups is actually legitimate before it violates their Constitutional civil rights. Additionally, to what extent is the use of force against these groups acceptable? In February of 1995, President Clinton introduced a counterterrorism bill into the Senate and House of Representatives. Among other extremely controversial proposals in the bill, the Department of Defense would be assigned an increased role in assisting in the investigation of domestic terrorism incidents in which chemical and biological agents were used (currently the military can be utilized in cases of terrorism in which nuclear weapons or devices are suspected or confirmed).2 Although the increased role for the military would be very limited, requiring further amendment to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, civil liberties experts warn that it would violate the tenants of "civil supremacy over the military" and would further kindle the animosities and anti-government sentiment of the citizen-militias and conspiracy theorists.3 Additionally, many Congressmen, law-enforcement officials and some military advisers agree that such uses of the military would be an extremely dangerous avenue of approach to combating domestic terrorism. Apparent Motivation There are basically four categories into which groups that are regarded as domestic terrorists can be distinguished currently existing in the United States. These groups can be generically delineated as being either motivated by: (1) religious convictions, (2) racial prejudice and supremacist goals, (3) anarchistic/anti-government/ politically motivated, or (4) in pursuit of unique special interests. These categories are derived from a conglomeration of the categorization and delineation of extremist and terrorist groups by two respected subject-authorities, Stephen Segaller and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice. Segaller, in his book Invisible Armies, categorizes domestic terrorism in the United States into four groups as well, but lists them as being: (1) Cuban infighting (political), (2) "backwoods terrorism" (a combination of religious, racist and anarchistic), (3) violent Puerto Rican independence groups (political), and (4) a handful of domestic revolutionary Marxist groups (anarchistic/anti- government and racist).4 Armed Forces Active-Duty Personnel Involvement Although military personnel, both active-duty and reserve, are explicitly prohibited from active involvement in extremist groups, membership in such groups is not prohibited and is further guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Army regulations define "active participation" as demonstrating, fund-raising, recruiting, or training.5 In direct response to the racially-motivated Fayetteville, North Carolina murders, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) conducted an investigation to determine to what extent racism against blacks occurs in the Army. The results of the study, which was conducted at five towns in North Carolina with military bases in close proximity to them, suggests that racist attitudes and practices are a much bigger problem than the Army is willing to admit. The NAACP also submitted a listing of twelve recommendations to remedy such problems. The recommendations included the establishment of military base liaisons to the NAACP, and the requirement for mandatory periodic diversity and sensitivity training for all personnel.6 Weapons / Training / Recruitment The ability of terrorist groups to successfully complete their mission, which is terror, requires them to have available the implements and materials necessary to intimidate, disorient and destabilize their "enemy". Although small arms such as small caliber rifles, shotguns and handguns are readily available within the United States, these groups must depend upon illegal gun-traders and black-market sources for automatic weapons and high-tech military equipment. As mentioned previously, these groups have been able to utilize military personnel, either through actual infiltration, theft or through exploiting greed, to obtain weapons and munitions with which to build their arsenals. Since explosive devices are a much more effective weapon for inciting mass terror than are guns, they are commonly used by domestic terrorist. Within the United States the principal sources from which these groups obtain high-quality industrial high explosive is either from quarrying sites, or from military bases and stockpiles. Military bases can also become the target of these "bombers"; Puerto Rican Macheteros used Iremite high explosives stolen from a construction site to cause more than $50 million in damage to Air National Guard aircraft.7 Laura Wood, a field researcher at the Klanwatch Project, asserts that active-duty as well as former military personnel are a prime target for recruitment by many of the extremist hate groups. They are valuable to the groups primarily due to their training with weapons and tactics, and for the image they provide in attracting new, civilian members.8 The ability of extremist groups, whether actively violent or merely vocal at present, to recruit active-duty military personnel poses a serious threat to efforts by the military leadership to control such activities. The recently released results of the Armys investigation of the degree to which extremists and racist hate-mongers exist in the military found that such groups do not necessarily "target" the average soldier for recruiting, but may more aggressively recruit from Special Forces personnel.9 Potential Effects on Readiness Morale and cohesiveness among personnel within a military unit are critical elements, both directly and indirectly, to that unit’s readiness and potential for successful employment. Directly, the trust and camaraderie that is necessary for a team to function and fight effectively is highly dependent on the ability of the members to communicate at all times. Conflict, whether caused by racial tensions, religious intolerance, or political differences, negatively influences communication and may ultimately disrupt good order and discipline. Supremacist views, discrimination and disparate treatment jeopardizes combat readiness by weakening interpersonal bonds, fomenting distrust, eroding unit cohesion, and will ultimately negate a units ability to operate to its full potential.10 Even though the strict prohibition of active-duty military personnel "actively participating" in extremist organizations addresses the topical public concerns and provides a degree of deniability for the Department of Defense regarding the existence of such elements in its ranks, it fails to acknowledge the more dangerous influence in the form of subtle attitudes and ideologies that can develop from passive participation in such groups. The all-volunteer force has also been identified as a contributing factor to the rise of extremist elements within the military. Sociologists and historians point out that, without a draft of personnel from the general population, military institutions tend to become more conservative and isolated from civilian society. Lawrence Korb, former Secretary of Defense, points out the opinion that: Volunteers have a longer initial term of service, reenlist in much higher numbers, and have a far lower turnover rate than draftees. Their conservative tendencies are constantly reinforced, and young soldiers can be easy prey to the extreme right-wing groups that proliferating.11 This selective process of developing a military force that is highly conservative politically, and is increasingly segregated from a more liberal civilian society, will ultimately result in future problems if not aggressively addressed from a personnel standpoint. Department of Defense Response Upon conclusion of the three-month probe ordered by Secretary of the Army Togo D. West, Department of Defense investigators reported "minimal presence of extremist activity," but have expressed concern over two specific findings. First, the presence and frequency of gang-related activities, which they said were "more pervasive than extremist activities on and near Army installations, and are becoming a significant security concern for many soldiers." The second finding that has stimulated concern, not only in the Army but throughout all of the Department of Defense, is the lack of clear and concise standards or guidelines regarding official policy on association with extremist groups by active-duty personnel.12 A primary concern and dilemma posed by the freedom of speech and association, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, is the authority of the military establishment to fully prohibit military personnel from becoming passively involved with groups or organizations that promote unsavory viewpoints and rhetoric. There is a very thin line, with a lot of latitude for flexible interpretation when determining to what extent association with these groups, and actual participation in them is occurring. Piers Wood, Center for Defense Information chief of staff, has been quoted as saying: Were concerned that the rights of free speech and assembly are not unduly restrained. They have to be restrained to a certain extent in all military establishments. And that means keeping active [duty] military out of politics, out of any groups with politicized pull.13 Among the major recommendations by the investigators were drafting of clearer rules on participation in extremist organizations by military personnel, closer screening of recruits to keep out persons with extremist views, and new training courses about extremist activity. Additionally, Army Secretary West ordered a review of after-hours regulations and guidance regarding the activities of junior service members, and stressed an increase in the degree of awareness of responsibility that mid- and upper-level supervisors had of what their soldiers were involved in when off duty.14 Martin van Creveld presents an interesting perspective on the relationship between the declining stature of large governments controlling all aspects of its citizens endeavors, and the growing prominence of non-governmental organizations and groups demanding sovereignty at the local and state levels.15 Many of these non-governmental groups instill fanatical loyalties among their membership which can potentially be exploited for violence and terroristic actions against the state, or other non-governmental organizations supported by or dependent upon the central government. The faltering ability, or at least perceived inability, of the government to adequately protect and represent the individual interests of its citizens has caused the development of a massive private security industry within the United States, as well as a virtual fortification of the residences and working areas of many senior government officials. The private security industry employs approximately as many people as there are active duty military personnel.16 The combination of this growing trend away from trust and reliance upon a large, all-powerful government, and towards a more localized and decentralized regional sovereignty (or even self-reliance in the case of many corporations) is central to the threat posed by militant and terroristic groups of today. The future role of the military in providing for the defense of the nation, against "all enemies foreign and domestic," and its support and composition in an environment of declining trust and confidence in "big government" bureaucracies, will be an area of concern into the 21st century.17 Effects of "Information Revolution" and the Mass Media The phenomenal increase in the availability of global information to the populace of the world-wide community through the Internet or World Wide Web, particularly within the United States where the average citizen can easily afford a personal computer or has ready access to one at the local public library, has significantly increased the ability of extremist and terrorist groups to promulgate their dogma. The ability of anyone "surfing the Net" to access huge volumes of hate-mongering, racist and violence-inciting information (both textual and video-graphic) has undoubtedly opened a new avenue for recruiting and communication for such groups. Explicit and detailed information on the materials required and methods of assembly to construct "homemade" bombs, how to store and transport them, and how they can be employed, is accessible at numerous World Wide Web-sites and is easily downloaded.18 There are also, even after the passage of the Federal Communications Bill in February, countless hate-groups and groups espousing various tid-bits of seditious information on the Internet. An example of the ease with which subversive, sometimes criminal, elements can utilize the new global information super-highway, is an advertisement for a mercenary to assassinate a Nigerian head of state recently appeared on the World Wide Web. For anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of how to utilize the Internet and/or World Wide Web search engines, a full spectrum of racists, anti-government, and even blatantly seditious information is available upon demand, directly into ones home or business. Another potential threat to the military that may result from the hyper-generation in personal computer and communications technology, and its ready accessibility by the general public, is the potential for terrorist groups bent on disrupting government operations to "hack into" Department of Defense automated information resources. The technological advances and improvements in the television industry, in so much as the increased ability to transmit "real-time" reports of occurrences worldwide from virtually any location, has made television a very valuable channel through which terrorists and extremists can disseminate their messages. And conversely, the television news organizations rely on the terrorist or extremist groups to "provide them a good story". This mutually dependent relationship is illustrated very well by the following quotation: "Television terrorists can no more do without the media than the media can resist the terror-event. The two are in a symbiotic relationship, ..."19 It is this "symbiotic" relationship that, in a free-speech society such as ours, requires an aggressive and wide-ranging education of Americans regarding the policies and actions of the government, and how those policies and actions impact on the citizenry. Conclusion(s) or Recommendation(s) Right-wing extremists and hate-motivated groups have historically, and are currently recruiting active duty military personnel for several reasons, including: 1) they lend a degree of "legitimacy" and "bravado" to militant groups that aids in the groups ability to recruit civilians, 2) they are trained and are capable of training group members in the use of weapons and tactics, 3) they are useful as an "inside" point of contact for ordinance and munitions thefts, and 4) the military environment fosters a more disciplined and conservative mindset that these groups can exploit and construe to attain loyalties and devotion based upon the racial or religious convictions of the soldier. Guidelines and policies must be carefully and succinctly enacted which clarify the degree to which military personnel can participate in groups that are deemed potentially dangerous, however great care must be taken to protect the freedoms and rights of military personnel. Additionally, education and frank, open discussions will be required to prevent and eliminate such problems in the future. References U.S. Department of Justice, National Security Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Terrorist Research and Analytical Center, Terrorism in the United States, 1994. (Washington, DC), 26. Mimi Hall, "Clintons Military Police Plan Under Fire", USA Today, 11 May 1995, Sec. 5A. Jonathan S. Landay, "Tempering Terrorism," The Christian Science Monitor, 8 May 1995, Sec. US. Stephen Segaller, Invisible Armies, Terrorism into the 1990s, (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, 1987), 221-225. Jonathan S. Landay, "Be All You Can Be -- But Not in Militias", The Christian Science Monitor, 28 April 1995, Sec. US. Paul Nowell, "NAACP: Military has Racial Woes," Free Lance-Star, Fredericksburg, VA, 2 March 1996, Sec. A4. Stephen Segaller, Invisible Armies, Terrorism into the 1990s, (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, 1987), 273. Jonathan S. Landy, "Army brass rattled by ties of soldiers to white-supremacists," The Christian Science Monitor, 19 December 1995. Steve Komarow, "Report: Hate Groups Find Army Bases Attractive," USA Today, 22 March 1996, Sec. 3A. William J. Perry, Annual Report of the Secretary of Defense to the President and the Congress, (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, October 1995), 95. Patrick Pexton, "Rooting Out Hatred in Uniform," Navy Times, 1 April 1996, Special Report, 8. Bradley Graham, "Minimal Extremist Presence Found in Army by Task Force," Washington Post, 22 March 1996, Sec. A3. Martin van Creveld, "The Fate of the State," Parameters, (Spring 1996), 4-18. Rise of Domestic Terrorism and its relation to United Stated Armed Forces,by Steven Mack Presley, Lieutenant Commander, Medical Service Corps, U.S. Navy, C&SC Class 96, Research Paper submitted to the Facultyof the U.S. Marine Corps Command and Staff College, 19 April 1996 B. Jenkins, "Thoroughly Modern Sabotage," Worldlink (March-April 1995), 16., and is discussed further in Martin van Creveld, "The Fate of the State," Parameters, (Spring 1996), 16. Tony Mauro, "Militias Battlecry Drawn Straight From the Constitution," USA Today, 26 April 1996, Sec.5A. J. Bowyer Bell. "Terrorist Scripts and Live-Action Spectaculars," Columbia Journalism Review, 1978, 17(1): 50. Read More