The Virginia National Guard has launched an investigation into two soldiers allegedly running an anti-government militia, raising concerns about extremism within military ranks.
At a Glance
- Virginia National Guard investigates Staff Sgts. Daniel Abbott and Alexandra Griffeth for militia involvement
- The Campbell County Militia operates with local government approval
- Army policy prohibits soldiers from participating in anti-government activities
- Investigation aims to address potential ethical lapses and maintain constitutional values
Virginia National Guard Launches Inquiry into Militia Ties
The Virginia National Guard has initiated an investigation into allegations that two of its soldiers, Staff Sgts. Daniel Abbott and Alexandra Griffeth, are running the Campbell County Militia, a rural anti-government group. This development has sparked concerns about the infiltration of extremist ideologies into military operations and the potential misuse of military resources.
Virginia National Guard spokesman A.A. Puryear confirmed the investigation, stating they are “aware” that the pair are active in the militia “and have initiated an investigation into the matter.” Puryear added that the Guard “will take appropriate action, in accordance with U.S. Army guidelines and directives, once the investigation is complete.”
2 Virginia Guardsmen Are Running a Rural Anti-Government Militia https://t.co/Fr77Ox5tGa
— Military.com (@Militarydotcom) September 5, 2024
Militia Activities and Local Government Support
The Campbell County Militia operates around Lynchburg, Virginia, with the approval of Campbell County’s Board of Supervisors. In a 2020 vote, the board recognized the militia as “a barrier against tyrannical government.” This local government support has raised questions about the boundaries between constitutional rights and potential threats to national security.
“Our own government is the greatest threat to our safety and security,” Abbott said at one event earlier this year. “Power is akin to force. I would argue there are only two [forces] man has direct access to. One of those is violence … [and] the threat of violence.”
Military.com reviewed militia meeting videos and found Abbott making threats against the federal government and preparing for potential war. These actions directly conflict with recent Army policies prohibiting soldiers from engaging in anti-government activities.
Army Policy and Extremism Concerns
Army Secretary Christine Wormuth recently issued a policy forbidding soldiers from participating in radical causes, including anti-government activity. The policy explicitly prohibits threats of violence against the government and actions aimed at overthrowing the government by force or unlawful means.
“Active participation in extremist activities can be prohibited even in some circumstances in which such activities would be constitutionally protected in a civilian setting,” Wormuth penned in a memo at the time of the policy’s release. “Extremism calls into question a soldier’s ability to follow orders from, or effectively lead and serve with, persons of diverse backgrounds, and it prevents maximum utilization and development of the Army’s most valuable asset — its people.”
The investigation into Abbott and Griffeth’s activities highlights the ongoing challenge of addressing extremism within military ranks. Their dual roles as National Guard soldiers and militia leaders raise concerns about the potential misuse of military resources and the spread of anti-government sentiment within the armed forces.
Implications for National Security
The Virginia National Guard’s investigation into these allegations is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the military and upholding constitutional values. As the inquiry progresses, it will be essential to balance the rights of individual soldiers with the need to prevent extremist influences from compromising national security.
The outcome of this investigation may have far-reaching implications for how the military addresses extremism within its ranks and could potentially lead to stricter enforcement of existing policies or the development of new guidelines to prevent similar situations in the future.
