What next???

[Chris C]

Okay, so the Governor of Missouri has declared a state of emergency and ordered out their national guard.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/1...d-jury-decision-will-likely-lead-to-violence/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/1...d-jury-decision-will-likely-lead-to-violence/

Navy veteran photographs 100 Homeland Security vehicles in an enclosed parking garage at his place of work (which is near Ferguson) and is fired for being a "terrorist". (at the order of DHS)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ferguson-and-now-hes-looking-for-another-job/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ferguson-and-now-hes-looking-for-another-job/

Erik Holder said the Gov was going to get involved, but I didn't realize it might mean Missouri's national guard fighting the DHS. Hope I'm wrong because this could be monumental!

 

[GunnyGene]

A common thread, including the Ferguson biz, often revolves around the militarization of law enforcement. Just some ramblings here, and I may be wrong on one or more points, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

In the military, especially in front line combat troops, we were trained to recognize and eliminate a threat. Honor the threat is the common term for this.

As far as I know, Law Enforcement (military or civilian) is trained to manage a situation.

These two different missions, and training for them, seem to me to be at the heart of the concerns. While military units sometimes receive some basic training in crowd/riot control, that is not their primary responsibility. And conversely, law enforcement may receive some training in recognizing and eliminating a threat, but that is also not their primary mission.

This also goes to "Commanders Intent", whether that commander is a buck sargeant running a squad or the president of the country. He must make clear what his intent is - managing the situation or eliminating the threat, as everything else flows from that - planning, assignment of assets, strategy, tactics, etc.

I think people understand this at a gut level, and that is why we see objections to the militarization of law enforcement. The general population, rightfully so, does not want to think of themselves as a threat.

At the same time, politicians naturally want to manage a situation, which goes against the fundamental mission of the military to eliminate a threat. Yet they persist in calling in the military to manage the situation for domestic issues when it looks like things may get out of hand, and calling in the LE assets when eliminating the threat internationally would be the right approach.

This all causes a considerable degree of confusion within both LE and military. A lack of clarity of the mission, or the wrong assets to either manage the situation or eliminate the threat, is almost always a recipe for disaster, as I think we've seen for quite a few years.

I don't know how to reconcile this, but I do think that managing a situation, and eliminating a threat are not compatible missions either domestically or internationally.