Gung-ho Politics

The decent society that I live in does not need or want our civilian police armed with automatic weapons. Their role is the civil control and moderation of us in and about our normal life. That does not entail rapid fire-fight to see off suicidal terrorists intent on mayhem where the only conceivable outcome can be large numbers of 'collateral damage', that is slaughtered husbands, wives, children, neighbours and friends to you and me.

If it comes to that neither do I want to be part of a society where it is normal and appropriate for policemen, armed with automatic fire weapons slung in their arms as they, patrol our crowded civilian airports. After weeks and weeks of doing nothing, how do you imagine they could or would respond to a sudden threat within the airport lounge? One single shot to resolve the situation and all returns to normal, or is general carnage a more apt expectation?

There is no disagreement, we do have a need to be very concerned about the rise of terrorism but the answer is not follow the american macho gung-ho approach of massive weapons and over-kill fire power. It is all very dramatic, it appears to be decision action and total control of a challenging situation. In reality this is just a media placating hype. A hail of bullets, even if yours are bigger, faster and more explosive power per bucks than your opponents, really does not answer the terrorist threat. If anything it actually makes it worse and just spreads the consequences wider. We do not want an arms race with terrorists. Nor do we do want to encourage them to target softer and more vulnerable mass gatherings. We actually need to play down our reaction and responses to their threats, to minimise our concerns, to allay their anticipation and preparations.

The police's daily expectation is not that of going out for another days gun fight, their mental preparation leaves them singularly unsuited to respond appropriately and accurately should they have to respond to fire. No matter what training they get in the use of weapons, once the school room is left behind within hours outside of real combat situations, time will dull the lessons of control and disciple. The adrenalin kick-in will inevitably lead to over-reaction, reflex firing with low target selection and accuracy threshold. A million miles away from a controlled careful sighted shot to 'take out' (kill) an armed threat that we are presented with, to reassure our nervous concerned citizen selves. That is not the way it happens in real life, setting well aside the fantasy movie images we are all weaned on. Bullets kill in a brutal haphazard way. We do need containment of any threat but not enlargement. Actually our old image of the policeman, quiet, determined, firm and fair, prepared to sacrifice himself for the public good, is a far better role model for resolution of a terrorist threat than the frenzied testosterone driven macho over-kill techniques promoted by the singularly unsuccessful american role. Quiet containment, diffusion, appeasement is a better and more measured response. It does not make for heroic kill headlines but is more likely to be successful in the longer term.