Veterans are no more likely than the general public to support political violence. Findings suggest that while veterans who engage in extremist violence pose specific threats due to their training, widespread extremist attitudes among military members appear to be relatively rare.
Veterans are no more likely than the general public to support political violence
15 Comments
>A recent [study](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40621-025-00626-5) published in the journal Injury Epidemiology provides evidence that military service and combat experience do not broadly increase support for political violence or right-wing extremism. The findings suggest that while veterans who engage in extremist violence pose specific threats due to their training, widespread extremist attitudes among military members appear to be relatively rare.
>“The January 6 insurrection raised questions about whether people with military experience are disproportionately involved in political violence,” said study author Elizabeth A. Tomsich, a researcher at the Centers for Violence Prevention at UC Davis.
>“While reports indicated that veterans were overrepresented among those charged, limited research has examined links between military service and support for or willingness to engage in political violence. We conducted this study to better understand whether military service and combat experience are associated with support for or willingness to engage in political violence, agreement with extremist views, or approval of extremist groups or movements.”
>Some experts have proposed that the psychological processes involved in military training, such as desensitization to violence and intense group solidarity, might make some veterans susceptible to extremist recruitment. At the same time, the loss of community and purpose during the difficult transition back to civilian life could pull some individuals toward radical organizations. However, prior surveys examining the endorsement of political violence among the general veteran population have yielded mixed and sometimes contradictory results.
>The researchers wanted to clarify whether military service or combat experience acts as a widespread risk factor for supporting political violence or extremist organizations. They sought to measure personal willingness to engage in such violence and approval of various extremist movements. By surveying a large, nationally representative sample, they hoped to provide a clearer picture of political militancy within the armed forces.
This seems like common sense to me. I honestly don’t understand the reason for the study or why it’s presented as surprising… most veterans I’ve met have become disillusioned with politics and don’t trust either party because they’ve seen inside the machine.
Most of the veterans I know have seen enough violence and death and laugh at others thinking it’s easy. They have no interest in it here or even overseas.
[removed]
The military is, objectively, an institution of political violence. I don’t think that’s bad, it’s neutral actually, it’s just funny how we’re conditioned to think of acceptable political violence as not political violence.
That seems logical. Most people enlist into the military due to them being from a deprivileged socioeconomic background. I would imagine that these people are even less likely than the average person to partake in any type of political violence.
But of course, you also have a small group of people with psychotic, violent traits that enlist because they wish to kill. I would guess that those are the minority that partake in extremist violence.
Facts..and alot of us are dyed in the wool antifacists.
As a Veteran, it is easy to see how little policy changed when it comes to the war machine.
When you deploy, you realize everyone is just trying to get by. The only ones shouting for war are the ones ready to profit from it.
We are trained to see it and be effective in it. Thats the only difference.
They make us this way and then get mad when we buy into the anti-fascism that they preach in Boot.
It’s almost like veterans are normal people. It’s only the non-vets who expect all vets to be a certain way.
Maybe cause they’re not cosplayers.
Grandpa was a 4 theater at many levels kinda staff officer going from building bridges under fire for Patton to occupation rebuilding them. He was never jingoistic and while a commanding presence he was never a cartoon Hegseth or even close. If anything, he had more restraint based on his experiences and was genuinely wise despite being a man of action. He helped build these alliances that ignorant sloganeering fools tear down.
I got a group of them I could point out that goes against these statistics.
This might be a misunderstanding. The lesson you learn about how grass grows in the military may really be screwing up a lot of people. So “What makes the green grass grow?” “blood, blood, blood, the enemy’s blood, drill sergeant!” may be having an odd effect here. Was this taken into account in the study? I think it could be about lawns possibly. Just extrapolation.
They only support political violence when they do it abroad to colonial targets! Then they pretend they ‘put their lives on the line’ despite the fact that western casualties in overseas operations are a fraction of a fraction of the number of civilians they massacre.
[Policing White Supremacy: The Enemy Within by Mike German | Goodreads](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/206303863-policing-white-supremacy)
The ex-FBI agent that wrote this book seems to think otherwise. Veterans are well represented in paramilitary extremist groups across the country and have been for over 50 years.
I guess most people who join don’t see combat so maybe thats where these numbers come from. I wonder if this stays the same when considering the ones with combat experience.