Police or Army vs. Terrorism

AZZenny · December 4th, 2005, 08:09 AM

An article by Robert Charles, a former State Dept guy and also former high-level cop. I would add that another important distinction is that a good police force, being integrated into their community over time, are in a better position to see subtle warning signs and more likely to be approached by the citizenry.

December 02, 2005
Police, Not Armies, Stop Terrorism

In the final analysis, there is a piece missing from the current debate over Iraq, and for that matter over Afghanistan. As MacArthur and others realized decades ago, police prevent, deter and stop terrorism in any democracy. Armies do not.

Armies -- ours and those we train -- are for combat, immediate post-combat stabilization, and mission completion, where the mission is identifiable and defined by a sound strategy, replete with benchmarks toward mission completion. Yes, benchmarks can shift in response to changes in the security environment, but not indefinitely. That is why we train democracy-stabilizing police forces. Not just armies.

In the wake of a successful effort by a victorious army, building (read: training) or re-building (read: retraining) an indigenous police force is the bellweather of a sustainable, enduring democracy. The occupying army cannot stay forever, and the re-trained or re-acculturated indigenous army can not be expected -- and should not be expected or pre-positioned -- to sustain a viable democracy.

Democracies do not fare well with military dictators, nor when entrusted to overpowering and internally focused armies. Armies are trained, quite rightly, to kill and ask questions later. Police forces are trained to exercise discretion, sustain the rule of law, respect human rights, understand the freedoms we have embodied neatly in a Bill of Rights (but which are more natural law than man made incantations) -- all this, even in the face of deadly force. That is a tall order, but that is what they are trained to do.

Insurgents are well armed and often ideologically crazed criminals. Radical Islamists are dangerous. They seek to undermine democracy because they seek to undermine choice, individuality, differences among free individuals, the free choice that leads to differences in faith, and the irrepressible appeal of a world in which the divine right is recognized to choose for or against living by one's freely ranging conscience. In short, they want oppression -- even suicide and chaos -- if that is what it takes to dominate the forces of free choice.

But recognizing this threat does not auomatically trigger the default to handing off a modestly stabilized society to a dominant army. The distinction between armies and police is one with a difference, and one that we need to mind, if we are not to witness a deep disappointment in the endgame in Iraq.

By way of example, a longtime expert and author on police, David Bayley, has said that "police systems exhibit an enormous inertial strength over time ...," which gives hope if one can seed a democratically inclined police force that can grow strong over time in the popular mind, while respecting the very rights for which wars are fought.

Consider the evolution of Japanese police during Post-World War II years, under Allied Occupation of Japan (1945-52), and how important those police were then, and later became. As another student of police in this era, Michael Schaller, wrote: "American reformers set about redefining [the police force's] role, transforming its ethos, even restructuring the system itself ... Those involved in the business of Occupation fully understood the significance of the police ... It is no exaggeration to say that the ‘democratization’ of Japan depended to a large extent on the transformation of this institution" -- the police. Moreover, "the extraordinary potential of the moment was keenly felt by those involved in carrying out the reform ..." So, today, Japan is a democratic power house with respect for the rule of law, under a civilized police force.

Now, enter the general drift in Iraq toward ... something different. The ebb and surge of a still-wild current in Iraq is taking us gently, or harshly, toward a bend in the river. That bend seems to lead around toward a future that looks less like post-war Japan, with its emphasis on civil rights and what we might now call community policing, and more toward ... a reluctantly militarized society.

Ironic really. Iraq's People generally pride themslves on a pre-Sadddam history rich in respect for law, dating back to the mists of Bablylon and Mesopotamia. But the current's pull is strong. Around that bend is a miltarized society that places the Iraqi Ministry of Interior on par with the Ministry of Defense, both competing with military means for control of a beleaguered population, both focused internally, neither remembering the precedent of Japan, or caring much about the American model, which includes a clear, constitutionally-mandated division of labor and prerogatives. Law enforcement serves one function, a well-trained Army another.

And the current quickens once that acceleration starts, that is, once civilian power is aggregated in the hands of those who -- whatever their labels -- operate with military conviction, practices and fire power in all situations. As Americans, we know this. We know we want to empower Iraqis to handle their own insurgency, which will flare periodically for years ahead, but we also want to prevent the creation of another military dictatorship that leads in a giant circle back to what we just helped them defeat.

To do that -- to leave the lasting gift of democratic freedom and stable institutions -- we cannot underestimate the importance of training civilian police in larger and larger numbers, seeding that future state with respect for law and the lone individual, no matter what that individual thinks. We cannot forget that early decisions -- and errors -- multiply themselves over time. We have a chance to do this right -- and it is only now that the current is quickening, and it matters.

As the push for drawdowns, and the drive for lasting stability, captivate, motivate and animate us all, remember that stability is not an end in itself, and beyond the bend is a louder roar. There, too, is a waterfall over which we do not want to send the Iraqi People. In the final analysis, once basic combat and rough stabilization have occured, we want to move rapidly toward a hand off of stablization functions to a well-trained, widely deployed, publicly trusted, civilian law enforcement contingent, not to an internally-dominant, democracy-indifferent military. The time has come to think hard on this next evolution in this necessarily winding river -- because police, not armies, ultimately prevent, deter and stop terrorism in a functional democracy. If we forget that, we forget much of what we came for, and could unexpectedly defeat ourselves in the act of winning.