Unrelenting assault on the population wrought by crime and violence has engendered a level of desperation in citizens, making them susceptible to any proposal offering a glimmer of hope of speedy resolution. Some areas are veritable war zones, citizens treated as war time enemies, while officials proclaim popular support for aggressive law enforcement.
Most law-abiding citizens, we are told, are pleased with the operations. Some view a little collateral damage as a small price for security, not justifying public outrage. Thus, militarisation of law enforcement escalates, reinforced by narrative commending use of the military as similar to peacekeeping missions in Haiti.
Peace-keeping seeks to maintain peace in states where "... the severity of the domestic situation could threaten peace and international security." It suffers from an inherent deficiency that once peacekeepers depart, warring factions resume hostilities. The intervention is artificial and contrived; deep-seated issues are not addressed.
Peace-keeping is therefore ill-suited to our circumstances. Peace-making on the other hand, not the forte of the military or the objective of current exercises, aims at bringing hostile elements to agreement and reducing communal tensions through negotiations, with mutual consent. This concept, packaged with other well-researched initiatives, seems much more applicable to the current challenge. But where is the vision, the understanding?
In the UK, the military is acknowledged as being able to assist the police with "niche capabilities or aiding capacity", freeing them for more effective street presence. However, the responsible Minister contends that "... putting military forces on the streets themselves in a public order role should only happen as a last resort." He warns of the inevitable, likely fatal, mistakes when men trained in the use of lethal force "... came face to face with the confusion, chaos and provocation of a domestic mob bent on venting anger ..."
The burgeoning epidemic of police brutality in the US has prompted the question: "How many children, old people and law-abiding citizens have to be injured, terrorised or killed before we call a halt to the growing rash of police violence that is wracking the country?" A study commissioned by the American Civil Liberties Union shows that militarisation of American policing "... is evident in the training that police officers receive, which encourages them to adopt a "warrior" mentality and think of people they are supposed to serve as enemies ..."
The study makes the case for de-escalating militarised policing, calling for appropriate restraints on approaches which condone a "warrior' mindset. Overly aggressive policing is deemed cultural, not solved "... by identifying a few bad apples or dismissing the problem as a few isolated incidents."
Today, we are not only intent on using para-military tactics and weapons–armoured vehicles etc–but on deploying the military in troubled neighbourhoods. This heightened militarisation is likely a first step down the slippery slope to off-duty rogue police and military deciding, on their own initiative, to conduct exercises of criminal cleansing.
A country aspiring to first world status cannot conceivably embrace policies seeming to sanction violence (possibly criminality) by state operatives in fighting crime and violence.Hyper-aggressive tools and tactics must only be used when truly necessary for citizen protection. We must be vigilant, reporting observed excesses to make sure that the police are protecting our communities, not invading. Freedom cannot protect itself: that's our duty. The pledge is: "To Protect and Serve", not: "To Raid and Ravage".
Winston R Rudder,
Petit Valley