Is Terrorism Good For Fighting Crime?

[NATO AIR]

interesting argument, though i remain wary of too much police/military power

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3139

Is Terrorism Good for Fighting Crime?

By James G. Forsyth Page 1 of 1

Posted August 2005

The July terrorist bombings jolted British law enforcement into unprecedented visibility on the streets of London. That makes some citizens nervous. But the extra costs of a greater police presence—both financially and politically—just may be worth it.

At New York’s Penn Station a couple weeks ago, two groups of boozy young men squared off. The disagreement? The respective qualities of the New York Mets and the Chicago Cubs. It was the kind of situation that denizens of major cities know all too well—and that sometimes escalates into violence. This time, though, it was different. A clutch of police officers and heavily armed military personnel simply strolled toward the overzealous (and intoxicated) young fans. The two groups broke up quicker than Britney Spears’s first marriage. The law enforcement personnel weren’t at Penn Station to break apart drunken brawls; they were there to prevent terrorism. But their mere presence was a serious deterrent, and illustrated an unexpected benefit of the city’s heightened state of alert.

It is a side effect that will be most welcome across the Atlantic. In England, a crime is committed every second. Antisocial behavior and low-level crime have become a public obsession there. The problem is particularly acute in London, where during last year’s mayoral election, 46 percent of voters deemed crime and disorder as the most important issue facing the city. Opposition politicians have taken to describing Britain as the “sick society of Europe.” After his recent election victory, Prime Minister Tony Blair felt obliged to announce that combating hooliganism will be a priority in his third term.

This summer’s terrorist attacks have led to a simple solution, albeit one the public has been pushing for decades: More bobbies on the beat. Tony Travers, an expert on city government at the London School of Economics, points out that the response to the attacks has had the “accidental effect of producing more of the kind of visible policing that people want.” Travers says, “There has been more visible policing in London since the 7th of July than at any period in modern history.” The results have arrived quickly. British Transport Police have noted a significant decrease in crime on the London Underground. Jan O’Neill, a British Transport Police spokeswoman, describes the stepped-up police presence as “having had a very beneficial effect.” Few criminals, it seems, are inclined to snatch a bag and charge through a Tube station in the present climate.
CONTINUE @ LINK

 

[Gunny]

interesting argument, though i remain wary of too much police/military power

Heh ..... I've always thought we should just take some of these hardcore, inner-city gangs and drop them off in Iraq. Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.

 

[pegwinn]

I don't want the Military doing law enforcements job. Marines are to break things and kill people. Not worry about if Kadeem in the streets of LA was properly mirandized in two languages (English and Ebonics).

I don't have a problem with the Military / Intell / Law Enforcement agencies sharing tactics and techniques and coordinating investigations. But Boots on the ground Cop Stuff should be done by cops, unless it's on base.

 

[Gunny]

I don't want the Military doing law enforcements job. Marines are to break things and kill people. Not worry about if Kadeem in the streets of LA was properly mirandized in two languages (English and Ebonics).

I don't have a problem with the Military / Intell / Law Enforcement agencies sharing tactics and techniques and coordinating investigations. But Boots on the ground Cop Stuff should be done by cops, unless it's on base.

I couldn't agree more. Playing cop is not what we're trained to do. Kickin' ass is.

This "insurgency" crap would be playing out a WHOLE lot differently if -- especially Fallujah -- if the military wasn't playing with their hands tied behind their backs. We give up our military superiority to appease political correctness. Pure horseshit.

 

[Nuc]

I couldn't agree more. Playing cop is not what we're trained to do. Kickin' ass is.

This "insurgency" crap would be playing out a WHOLE lot differently if -- especially Fallujah -- if the military wasn't playing with their hands tied behind their backs. We give up our military superiority to appease political correctness. Pure horseshit.

I basically agree with you, but of course you are playing with your hands tied when you go into a country without being invited. The defender doesn't have to tie his hands.

 

[Gunny]

I basically agree with you, but of course you are playing with your hands tied when you go into a country without being invited. The defender doesn't have to tie his hands.

It is not the Iraqis that have tied our hands behind our backs. It's this stupid subculture of political correctness, and sudden-found, holier-than-thou morality coming from the left.

If conservatives have morals, we're trying to force them on the poor libs. But if we try to fight a war to win it, suddenly they're crying foul and forcing their morals through the media onto the US military.

The objective is to win. Not create a stalemate. Not lose because of some overly-moralistic standards of people sitting on their fat asses in front of their tubes. It's to win, and if that means hunting these scumsucking murderers down like the dogs they are, then so be it.

If it means levelling an entire city such as Fallujah to keep from risking casualties on our side, so be it.

You start hanging the dead bodies of terrorists from telephone poles with gutted hogs tied to them I bet it would quell a whole lot of enthusiasm.

 

[Nuc]

You start hanging the dead bodies of terrorists from telephone poles with gutted hogs tied to them I bet it would quell a whole lot of enthusiasm.

OK, as much as that might seem like fun, it's also what they've been doing to each other for eons and they are still unquelled.

 

[Gunny]

OK, as much as that might seem like fun, it's also what they've been doing to each other for eons and they are still unquelled.

No, I believe where there religion is concerned, they observe some etiquette while murdering one another. None of them would touch a pig, gutted or not.

 

[Nuc]

No, I believe where there religion is concerned, they observe some etiquette while murdering one another. None of them would touch a pig, gutted or not.

I don't know if this is an urban legend or a fact, but I heard the Israelis were putting vats of pig fat on the busses so that the Moslems wouldn't want to blow them up for fear of trying to get into paradise covered with a forbidden substance. Does anyone know if this is real?

 

[pegwinn]

I basically agree with you, but of course you are playing with your hands tied when you go into a country without being invited. The defender doesn't have to tie his hands.

Hey Nuc. I didn't go to the ME uninvited. I went as part of Uncles discount travel program. We got group rates as well. The point is that there should be stages to warfare. First is the State Department. When they fail, you handoff to the JCS and Theater Commander. Then you locate, close with, and destroy the enemy. I have no problem winning hearts and minds. I have no problem with reconstruction and humanitarian aid. But, you must pacify the enemy first.

Simple Operational Art lesson. We used maneuver warfare (airland battle doctrine for Army types) in order to bypass the strong and let em wither. WE crushed anyone foolish enough to directly oppose us. Those we bypassed we destroyed via Air and Indirect fire. Problem was that once the "rear" was open we didn't systematically root out the holdouts. And when we encountered para-mils (Saddam Feyadeen for a specific example) we didn't crush em. We engaged defensively and allowed them to break contact. The maneuver doctrine saves the horrific attrition warfare casualties of the past century. But it assumes a greater "partisan" threat. Our politicians didn't allow us to deal with the insurgent threat that doctrine said there would be.

Fallujah is a prime example of diplomats going in and trying to deal with a military problem. Had they simply told our Marines to retake the town and destroy the threat, they would have.

Long Story short, all this politeness is killing my servicemen and women. Once we opt for war, then lets make war.