Thread: West Point center cites dangers of ‘far right’ in U.S.

By Rowan Scarborough
-
The Washington Times
Thursday, January 17, 2013


A West Point think tank has issued a paper warning America about “far right” groups such as the “anti-federalist” movement, which supports “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government.”
The report issued this week by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., is titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.”
The center — part of the institution where men and women are molded into Army officers — posted the report Tuesday. It lumps limited government activists with three movements it identifies as “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”
The West Point center typically focuses reports on al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists attempting to gain power in Asia, the Middle East and Africa through violence.
But its latest study turns inward and paints a broad brush of people it considers “far right.”
It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”
The report also draws a link between the mainstream conservative movement and the violent “far right,” and describes liberals as “future oriented” and conservatives as living in the past.
“While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo.” the report says. “The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.”
The report adds: “While far-right groups’ ideology is designed to exclude minorities and foreigners, the liberal-democratic system is designed to emphasize civil rights, minority rights and the balance of power.”
The report says there were 350 “attacks initiated by far-right groups/individuals” in 2011.

Details about what makes an attack a “far right” action are not clear in the report, which was written by Arie Perliger, who directs the center’s terrorism studies and teaches social sciences at West Point.

A Republican congressional staffer who served in the military told The Washington Times: “If [the Defense Department] is looking for places to cut spending, this junk study is ground zero.
“Shouldn’t the Combating Terrorism Center be combating radical Islam around the globe instead of perpetuating the left’s myth that right-wingers are terrorists?” the staffer said. “The $64,000 dollar question is when will the Combating Terrorism Center publish their study on real left-wing terrorists like the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and the Weather Underground?”

Read more: West Point center cites dangers of 'far right' in U.S. - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Good post. It seems that the Military Academies are having their own fair share of leftist agenda. I should have known when the Air Force Academy opened a Wicken Center..

Yep,this is an on going problem back in the Clinton days the word was they were concerned the academies would produce future conservative leaders therefore the propaganda begin as it has in our public schools and universities for years.

The only way to change the future of America is change the public education system or go private, right now I would not send my dog to public school, while we have some good teachers the system is broke and it's very few children can escape the liberal propaganda that is given in today's schools.

Report: Obama administration may push Mattis out

JANUARY 18TH, 2013
POSTED BY DAN LAMOTHE

Gen. James Mattis, head of U.S. Central Command, and Adm. William McRaven, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March. (Thomas Brown/ Staff)

Last month, President Obama nominated Gen. Lloyd Austin to succeed Gen. James Mattis as the head of U.S. Central Command. The choice and its timing immediately raised questions about Mattis’ future, particularly given his standing as one of the most revered military leaders of his generation.
Mattis was typically stoic when I approached him for a response.

“I’ll remain focused on my job at CENTCOM for now and figure out the rest later,” he said in an email.

U.S. military officials have speculated for months that Mattis could leave his CENTCOM post by this summer and join civilian life. Now, though, a well-connected journalist and analyst is raising questions whether that could happen even sooner.
In a blog post this morning, Tom Ricks suggests that Mattis has been told to vacate his office “several months early” — possibly even by March.

From Ricks:

Why the hurry? Pentagon insiders say that he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way — not because he went all “mad dog,” which is his public image, and the view at the White House, but rather because he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran. Some of those questions apparently were uncomfortable. Like, what do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf? He kept saying, “And then what?”
Inquiry along these lines apparently was not welcomed — at least in the CENTCOM view. The White House view, apparently, is that Mattis was too hawkish, which is not something I believe, having seen him in the field over the years. I’d call him a tough-minded realist, someone who’d rather have tea with you than shoot you, but is happy to end the conversation either way.

Ricks, now an analyst at the Center for a New American Security, is certainly well connected. It seems unlikely that sources would have opened up to him on this topic unless there was some sort of tension behind the scenes.
And therein lies the rub. Obama may have been the commander in chief who authorized the bin Laden raid, but many troops believe he still lacks gravitas on his national security resume. Allowing a smart, critical general with connections to governments all over the world retire early seems foolhardy, at best.

That question, “and then what?” We always need our leaders to ask it. Always.

Battle Rattle - A Marine Corps Times Blog

Comments are interesting....