The danger of woke warriors

Late last month, buried in the slow news days of the holidays, the U.S. Department of Defense issued new guidelines on “combatting extremist activities” within the military. The document stems from a working group set up to study participation by members of the U.S. military in the events in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021. The guidelines target “advocating, engaging in, or supporting” various “extremist activities,” such as terrorism or the violent overthrow of the government. Note that the report also comes at a time when the U.S. Army now employs a “chief diversity officer” who is “aggressively working to eliminate extremism” in the ranks, according to the U.S. Army News Service.

In principle, a policy against extremist activities by members of the military is not inherently wrong. Indeed, such policies have been on the books for a while and make sense. The deadliest mass shooting on a military base in U.S. history occurred in 2009, when an Army major radicalized by Islamist propaganda attacked fellow soldiers at Fort Hood in Texas. Utilizing intelligence and military police tools to prevent attacks like that is appropriate.

But the context in which these new guidelines arise is not intra-military violence like Fort Hood but participation in the events of Jan. 6 by members of the military. Though what happened a year ago at the U.S. Capitol was despicable and illegal, what happened on the National Mall that day was legal, a rally in our nation’s public square entitled to the fullest protection of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Too few make that important distinction, and too many have been punished for participating in a legitimate protest.

But Jan. 6 is now claimed as the socially acceptable reason to target “extremism” and “domestic terrorism” and “hate,” leading to policies like this new one. But those words, like all others, require definition. Words like “extremist” and “hate” are now applied to some Christians in our culture, merely for upholding Biblical teachings. The Defense Department’s new guidelines apply to activities like “Advocating widespread unlawful discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including pregnancy), gender identity, or sexual orientation” or “Advocating or engaging in unlawful force or violence to achieve goals that are political, religious, discriminatory, or ideological in nature.”

Again, it’s necessary to have vigilant safeguards in place. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, would have been guilty of engaging in violence to achieve religious and ideological goals. And though neo-Nazis had a right to march through Skokie, Ill., they have no right to wear the nation’s uniform.

But conservatives are right to worry that these new regulations are not a legitimate exercise in maintaining morale but rather a stalking horse for an ideological agenda creeping into the military. Consider: In the last few years, the U.S. military has spent $8 million on hormone therapy and surgeries for transgender troops.

The military is increasingly in tune with the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) agenda that can be a Trojan horse for critical race theory. Again, a military that looks like America is something to be celebrated in the abstract, as the recent passing of Colin Powell reminds us. But we cannot undermine the proper patriotism that motivates men to fight by attacking the nation we ask them to defend.

And in these days when COVID vaccine mandates are front and center, a federal judge is very concerned that military policymakers are ignoring the legitimate exemption requests of service members with religious objections.

In other words, at a time when our military should be focused on defending freedom in the eastern Pacific and Eastern Europe, our defense bureaucracy looks like a typical Fortune 500 company, prioritizing all the wrong social policies.

We will have to wait and see how the new guidelines are enforced. But we should be wary, especially if we start seeing DEI bureaucrats embedded in actual units.

Anyone who has seen the classic movies about the Soviet era, such as The Hunt for Red October or Enemy at the Gates, knows that every Russian military unit had a “political officer” whose job was to spread regime propaganda and ensure ideological loyalty among the troops, especially other officers.

Let’s hope we never see a day when “political officers” invade the U.S. military.