Just how radicalized is the US national security community?

One anecdote from the LinkedIn "Intelligence Community"

Washington DC 27 May 2022

Yesterday’s article on the rise of extremism in the US triggered a furious response from radicals in surprising places. This is a very brief comment on the reaction because it confirms the thesis of the article and says a lot in its own right about the state of radicalization in the United States.

The article was a brief snapshot of just one theme in a forthcoming book: Civll Wars II: From Insurrection to Insurgency (also the subject of this blog). It was not intended as a comprehensive account of the entire book. The book does that!

The fact base of the article was clearly laid out, sourced and referenced. The key evidence presented included polling results conducted by The Washington Post and University of Maryland and direct quotes by conservative members of congress. Comparative quotes by liberal politicians were sourced from the page of a conservative politician condemning her opponents. In that instance, biased sourcing was used for a purpose. It was biased in favor of the radicals, in an attempt to provide a source they might accept (typically they reject any sourcing outside of Fox, OAN, or even more radical sources). References were also made to academic and think tank research from established experts in their respective fields. These are all a matter of public record. They are facts. The facts in the article show conclusively that radicalization in America is happening on the right at double the rate than on the left. This accords with Mann and Ornstein’s cited research conducted over many years. To conclude the problem is equal to right and left would be to deny the facts and research. Fact denial and substitution of ‘alternatives facts’ (lies for those who are wondering) is of course a key tactic of extremists.

A small, vocal and angry minority on the LinkedIn “Intelligence Community” page where the article was shared, had a force ten meltdown. They were very angry and upset, just like the people in the titular picture accompanying the article.

The piece was viewed over 10,000 times in the first 6 hours of its release. Of the ~10-15 comments only 2 were ‘neutral’. The rest were universally furious - pure emotion, zero analysis. The 'what aboutism' and ad hominem attacks were expectedly high. All the usual cognitive distortions and fallacious arguments were screamed out. These were people in pain.

• This is trash

• Partisan insanity

• What does this have to do with intelligence?

• What about the riots?

  

There was not 1 response that made a substantive argument to challenge or disprove the facts, the case, or engage in a debate. It was all just emotions - pure hysteria. Which kind of proves the point of the piece. There is a segment of society that is now so radicalized that they cannot even consider a fact-based analysis from a viewpoint other than their own or engage in civil discourse. This is more concerning because the LinkedIn Intelligence Community discussion group is supposed to be for serious people, using their real identities and affiliations, presenting their professional selves in the best light. It is not twitter where rage rules (more on LI below).

My favorite complaint was "what does this have to do with intelligence?" Like the rise of radicalization and its impact on American stability is not a subject intelligence professionals should be concerned about. That alone is a huge red flag. Indicators and warning? Threat to the homeland? The future of democracy and the rise of authoritarianism at home and abroad? Impact on America's role as a global leader? These things have nothing to do with intelligence or US national security?

Typical of the ‘what-aboutism’ responses, was the Fox News talking point that the riots in the wake of the police murder of George Floyd were far worse than an attempt to violently overthrow the US Government. All violence is completely repugnant and unacceptable in any society. The riots were unacceptable. They stand condemned. The damage and destruction circumscribes the limit of the reach of the riots.

Riots are not on the same plane as terrorism, insurrection or sedition. Riots are a spontaneous explosion of public anger and frustration. A riot is defined as “a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.” (18 U.S. Code § 2101)

Riots are not coordinated action for a political purpose. Jan 6 on the other hand, was exactly that. The storming of the US Capitol to prevent the certification of an election was a political act intended to overthrow democracy (by nullifying the results of a federal election and imposing an unelected ruler). It was directed by political leaders “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; [and to] to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion”(18 U.S. Code § 2331 (5)).

The domestic terrorism statute is not the only law that was violated during the insurrection. Seditious conspiracy includes using violence to “prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States” (18 U.S. Code § 2384). At least one judge handling Jan. 6 cases has already held “the execution of any law of the United States” includes Congress’s joint session for counting electoral votes.

Other relevant laws include Title 18, section 1512(c)(2) that prohibits “whoever corruptly … obstructs … or impedes any official proceeding.” 18 U.S. Code § 610 states that “it shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government”. All of these acts are also subject to the conspiracy statute where “if two or more persons conspire… to commit any offense against the United States… in any manner or for any purpose” they have broken the law (18 U.S. Code § 371). These too, are not just facts, they are the law of the land.

I can fully understand that if you sympathize with radical extremists, having all of this presented to you is deeply upsetting. Instead of reflecting on it, screaming outrage and attacking the source makes you feel better. But in this instance the problem is this is not twitter. On some level, this is a sample of national security professionals who are charged with protecting the public from threats to national security. There is no greater threat to national security than furious anti-democratic forces using violence to install an unelected dictator.

All of this outrage took place in the “Intelligence Community Group” (ICG) on LinkedIn. I have been a member of LinkedIn (LI) since 2004 and of the ICG for at least 4 or maybe more years. LI is my preferred social media platform because it incentivizes people to use their real identities and present themselves in a professional light. Like any social media (SM) platform or group, it has been an uneven experience, but on balance I have found continued membership worthwhile as the occasional posting sheds new light on a security challenge.

Readers will immediately respond that most of the members of the group are not in the IC, that it is teeming with spies and/or bots, and that LinkedIn itself is a much diminished platform for the same reasons. All of this is true. It is impossible to tell the group-wide breakdown of real national security professionals to bots and malicious actors.

Thankfully the bots and spies are still pretty easy to spot on an individual basis. The bulk of the unhinged respondents did have credible LI pages. They appeared to be real people working in the national security field. It stands to reason that division in society is reflected in the national security community. The concern is they are supposed to be educated and trained to see patterns of political threats and make plans to prevent them. Not encourage, support and participate in them! If the LI ICG is anything to go by, the US national security profession has a very serious agitated and motivated insider threat.