Another terrorist attack in London

[Commodore]

Why would having 20,000 more police officers available for duty shifts significantly alter these events? Response time has been fantastic and loss of life has been minimal if we are to compare to bombings and attacks in the Middle East.

Comparing to the Middle East isn't the right way to compare though. For accurate comparisons, you'd have to compare yourself to a similar nation. That'd be like the US comparing its economy to, say, Zimbabwe and saying "well, I guess our economy is perfect because we are doing much better than those guys."

As to what 20,000 more officers could do: Basically, numbers always help. I was in Iraq during the tail end of the surge and the beginning of the troop draw down so I got to see first hand what merely having bodies in uniform can do to help a security situation, especially in a counter-insurgency environment (and with three attacks in three months, an argument could start being made that the UK may be facing, or will soon face, a domestic counter-insurgency war with local Islamic extremists). During the tail end of the surge, when we still had a crap-ton of troops in Iraq, the security situation was actually stabilizing. Attacks were decreasing, more HVIs were being captured and weapons and fighters from outside Iraq were being intercepted with increasing frequency. Once the troop draw down started though, we tried to maintain our operational tempo, but couldn't because as more and more troops were withdrawn, we had less and less resources to work with and simply didn't have the personnel to cover everything we needed to cover. Soon attacks picked up again and weapons and foreign fighters were pouring through the borders. I noticed it when the marines pulled out of Anbar province. My unit's AO was pretty much the last line of defense between stuff being smuggled in from Syria and Baghdad. The marines in Anbar did a pretty good job of catching most stuff and I hardly had anything to do. Most of my intelligence collection at that point was mostly focused on boring stuff like how the Iraqis feel about the government. Once the marines withdrew though, all of a sudden my sources start pointing me to more and more weapons caches and safe houses for foreign fighters traveling from Syria. Our unit's kinetic operations started picking up too and our JCOP started suffering more and more rocket and mortar attacks. We caught what we could, but we simply didn't have the numbers to catch everything so stuff started slipping through into Baghdad and attacks there started increasing as well.

The point of all that is numbers help. Start reducing your available security personnel, and your ability to keep whatever it is that you are trying to protect safe will suffer from it.

 

[Synobun]

The point of all that is numbers help. Star reducing your available security personnel, and your ability to keep whatever it is that you are trying to protect safe will suffer from it.

I guess having more cops at the Manchester concert could have padded the bomber's kill count? Seems like that's the opposite effect you're going for here...

There comes a point where more doesn't equal better, especially when response time and resolution is already in the neighbourhood of 10-20 minutes. Additional police wouldn't have changed a situation where the officers who responded already dealt with or are dealing with the assailants. They could stand around and look real nice for the cameras but their actual involvement in solving the problem is minimal.

To be clear: I don't disagree with the point that the cop force shouldn't have been cut so drastically. I disagree with the cut being bad because of terror attacks. More police wouldn't have changed these events and it comes across much like May's hysterical point that the internet needs to be put under harsh surveillance and regulation to prevent terrorism. As in, it comes across like virtue signalling.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The point of all that is numbers help. Star reducing your available security personnel, and your ability to keep whatever it is that you are trying to protect safe will suffer from it.

While this seems indisputable, it still feeds into the question about how to provide prevention. It seems like it can't really help response. And it seems like prevention is more about what obscene violations of individual freedoms become acceptable rather than numbers.

 

[Commodore]

I guess having more cops at the Manchester concert could have padded the bomber's kill count? Seems like that's the opposite effect you're going for here...

You're missing the point. More cops could have meant these attacks may not have happened in the first place because they would have had more resources to dedicate to proactive policing instead of just reactive policing. Clearly the UK has excellent reactive policing ability. Now they just need to work on their crime/terrorist prevention ability.

They could stand around and look real nice for the cameras but their actual involvement in solving the problem is minimal.

You're underestimating the value of having a strong, visible presence. Terrorists (and criminals in general for that matter) don't go after hard targets. They go after the "easy score". Just having those cops standing around or doing patrols can go a long way in deterring a would-be criminal or terrorist. It's why we would often to "show of force" patrols in Iraq. If there was a town or village we hadn't been to in a while, we'd just send a patrol there just to let everyone know we were still there and we were still watching.

 

[Camikaze]

Citing COIN tactics as a solution to attacks in London doesn't make for a particularly convincing argument.

 

[Kozmos]

At this point you're arguing for 10k more MI5 personnel and not cops. Which you partly pay for by firing those 20k cops.

 

[Commodore]

Citing COIN tactics as a solution to attacks in London doesn't make for a particularly convincing argument.

Unless it turns into a full-blown insurgency. Which, if the frequency of the attacks continues as it currently is, that may actually happen. Better to nip it in the bud now than to wait for London to start looking like Belfast during The Troubles.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're missing the point. More cops could have meant these attacks may not have happened in the first place because they would have had more resources to dedicate to proactive policing instead of just reactive policing. Clearly the UK has excellent reactive policing ability. Now they just need to work on their crime/terrorist prevention ability.

Problem is that you haven't differentiated how this "proactive policing" differs from the "best" case our Russian friend has described:

Best case scenario is that "police assaulted and killed suspected terrorists in London apartment" kind of news start to appear. It would mean, people who suppose to prevent terrorist attacks are finally doing their job properly.

Killing suspects in place without trial, based on intelligence gleaned from informants, may have been great for you in a war zone, but it only works in a war zone. Do you think the UK is ready for that?

 

[Synobun]

You're underestimating the value of having a strong, visible presence. Terrorists (and criminals in general for that matter) don't go after hard targets. They go after the "easy score". Just having those cops standing around or doing patrols can go a long way in deterring a would-be criminal or terrorist. It's why we would often to "show of force" patrols in Iraq. If there was a town or village we hadn't been to in a while, we'd just send a patrol there just to let everyone know we were still there and we were still watching.

Ah, the "cops on every street corner" model. Do the loyal citizens need to keep their eyes averted too or would that be seen as potential for being a terrorist? Let's hash out the details here so we can clarify just how strong of a presence you're suggesting would eliminate terror attacks.

I'm willfully ignoring your "we'll prevent an insurgency!" argument because it's ridiculous and I don't think it's worth entertaining. You would need to find a better crowd to discuss this with than CFCers if you genuinely believe the UK is on the cusp of a terror insurgency.

 

[Commodore]

I'm willfully ignoring your "we'll prevent an insurgency!" argument because it's ridiculous and I don't think it's worth entertaining.

So you will ignore the opinion of someone who actually has quite a bit of experience in these matters and can recognize the warning signs? That kind of attitude is precisely why there have been three terror attacks in three months in London. There is clearly a problem brewing in the UK and their government isn't taking the appropriate action to get it under control before it explodes into something bigger.

Ah, the "cops on every street corner" model. Do the loyal citizens need to keep their eyes averted too or would that be seen as potential for being a terrorist? Let's hash out the details here so we can clarify just how strong of a presence you're suggesting would eliminate terror attacks.

You know, I'm trying to actually discuss this with you and now you're adopting this mocking and hostile tone for no reason. So I'd be happy to clarify my position, but only if you are actually going to listen and respond in good faith.

Problem is that you haven't differentiated how this "proactive policing" differs from the "best" case our Russian friend has described:

Well since it's not a full-blown war zone, as you pointed out, I'd prefer the police to arrest terror suspects rather than adopt the "shoot to kill" policy that red_elk seems to be advocating. Hell, we didn't even have a "shoot to kill" policy in Iraq. Our orders were to attempt to capture and only kill if capture isn't possible. The idea being that we want to get intel from these guys, and it is pretty hard to extract information from a corpse.

 

[Synobun]

So you will ignore the opinion of someone who actually has quite a bit of experience in these matters and can recognize the warning signs? That kind of attitude is precisely why there have been three terror attacks in three months in London. There is clearly a problem brewing in the UK and their government isn't taking the appropriate action to get it under control before it explodes into something bigger.

I will ignore the opinion of someone who is wrong, yes. Your military experience in the Middle East should blatantly inform you that your approach would create the very problem you're saying it would preemptively solve.

You know, I'm trying to actually discuss this with you and now you're adopting this mocking and hostile tone for no reason. So I'd be happy to clarify my position, but only if you are actually going to listen and respond in good faith.

You're not arguing in good faith. You can't expect something if you won't give it yourself. Regardless, what I said was mentioned with the full belief that this is what you're advocating for. If I'm wrong, I am certainly willing to be convinced. What's a "strong, visible presence" that won't impede on the freedoms of the citizenry but will also prevent terror attacks?

 

[Commodore]

You're not arguing in good faith.

And this is where the breakdown is. So before we can continue this conversation we have to resolve this. Exactly what is is about what I've said so far that indicates I'm not arguing in good faith?

 

[Synobun]

And this is where the breakdown is. So before we can continue this conversation we have to resolve this. Exactly what is is about what I've said so far that indicates I'm not arguing in good faith?

Everything about you, your stories, your previous posts on CFC, would indicate that you would never seriously advocate for what amounts to martial law as a legitimate long-term solution to an external, quasi-internal threat. It makes me think you're just playing the devil's advocate for no good reason.

 

[Commodore]

Everything about you, your stories, your previous posts on CFC, would indicate that you would never seriously advocate for what amounts to martial law as a legitimate long-term solution to an external, quasi-internal threat. It makes me think you're just playing the devil's advocate for no good reason.

Ah, okay. So I should have clarified exactly what it is I was advocating. I'm not advocating martial law, nor am I advocating for a heightened security posture for years and years on end. What I am advocating is using the lessons learned in counter-insurgency operations to create a more effective anti-terrorism aspect to policing. Not saying the UK needs to go full-blown martial law or that they need to do exactly what armies do in war zones, but that they need to look at those operations and find a way to apply the general concepts and modify them for civilian policing. Especially since the biggest lesson learned in counter-insurgency and anti-terrorism operations has been that civilian law enforcement, when properly trained, staffed, and equipped is far and away more effective at dealing with those threats than armies are. All the most successful counter-insurgency operations have had civilian law enforcement taking the lead with the military only lending a hand when needed (i.e. taking a fortified insurgent stronghold).

I also advocate for maintaining a high level of staffing for security apparatuses (whether it be military, police, or intelligence collection) even if current circumstances indicate you could do with a little less. The basic philosophy being "better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."

As for the "strong, visible presence" part, it's basically just having enough officers out on patrol to remind people that they are there. The deterrent effect of just their presence, even if they aren't doing anything, can prevent crime or at least make someone think a little harder about whether or not it's worth it. The best example I can think of to illustrate the point I'm making would be the police presence on the highways here in the US. You go through long stretches of highway without seeing a police car and you're going to see all kinds of people speeding and driving recklessly (weaving in and out of traffic, riding bumpers, etc.), but once you drive past an area where there's a cop car sitting on the side of the road all of a sudden everyone turns into the perfect driver that obeys all traffic laws. And that cop isn't even doing anything. All he/she had to do was park their car on the side of the road in a visible place.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well since it's not a full-blown war zone, as you pointed out, I'd prefer the police to arrest terror suspects rather than adopt the "shoot to kill" policy that red_elk seems to be advocating. Hell, we didn't even have a "shoot to kill" policy in Iraq. Our orders were to attempt to capture and only kill if capture isn't possible. The idea being that we want to get intel from these guys, and it is pretty hard to extract information from a corpse.

Ah. So the difference between his "best case" and yours is that while he wants people shot without trial you're satisfied with just rounding them up for interrogations without trial. Clearly that is far superior.

 

[Synobun]

Ah, okay. So I should have clarified exactly what it is I was advocating. I'm not advocating martial law, nor am I advocating for a heightened security posture for years and years on end. What I am advocating is using the lessons learned in counter-insurgency operations to create a more effective anti-terrorism aspect to policing. Not saying the UK needs to go full-blown martial law or that they need to do exactly what armies do in war zones, but that they need to look at those operations and find a way to apply the general concepts and modify them for civilian policing. Especially since the biggest lesson learned in counter-insurgency and anti-terrorism operations has been that civilian law enforcement, when properly trained, staffed, and equipped is far and away more effective at dealing with those threats than armies are. All the most successful counter-insurgency operations have had civilian law enforcement taking the lead with the military only lending a hand when needed (i.e. taking a fortified insurgent stronghold).

I also advocate for maintaining a high level of staffing for security apparatuses (whether it be military, police, or intelligence collection) even if current circumstances indicate you could do with a little less. The basic philosophy being "better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."

As for the "strong, visible presence" part, it's basically just having enough officers out on patrol to remind people that they are there. The deterrent effect of just their presence, even if they aren't doing anything, can prevent crime or at least make someone think a little harder about whether or not it's worth it. The best example I can think of to illustrate the point I'm making would be the police presence on the highways here in the US. You go through long stretches of highway without seeing a police car and you're going to see all kinds of people speeding and driving recklessly (weaving in and out of traffic, riding bumbers, etc.), but once you drive past an area where there's a cop car sitting on the side of the road all of a sudden everyone turns into the perfect driver that obeys all traffic laws. And that cop isn't even doing anything. All he/she had to do was park their car on the side of the road in a visible place.

In theory, I agree with what you've said. In practice, I'm not sure if it would stand up to scrutiny especially in a nation like the US. The UK has a better relationship with their police force but I don't think having such an increased presence would make citizens feel safe unless they were solidly a part of the arbitrary demographic that's propped up by the police (not necessarily maliciously or consciously). Furthermore, I don't believe this would actually stop terror attacks in the long-term. If anything, it would make them far more creative and destructive.

As crass as it may sound, the current societal climate in the west is perfect for minimizing the damage from terror attacks. It encourages the ragtag strikes we've been seeing which reduces the death toll and catastrophe. Larger threats are dismantled behind the scenes or are otherwise unable to exact their plans because the poorly planned attacks are preventing them from navigating adequately enough to set things up for the perfect strike. I feel that your idea would explicitly make it so that only the perfect strike can happen... or 'dirty' strikes that are horrendous in scope and casualties.

 

[Commodore]

As crass as it may sound, the current societal climate in the west is perfect for minimizing the damage from terror attacks. It encourages the ragtag strikes we've been seeing which reduces the death toll and catastrophe. Larger threats are dismantled behind the scenes or are otherwise unable to exact their plans because the poorly planned attacks are preventing them from navigating adequately enough to set things up for the perfect strike. I feel that your idea would explicitly make it so that only the perfect strike can happen... or 'dirty' strikes that are horrendous in scope and casualties.

That is certainly a possibility. One of the things they taught us was that the possibilities for an attack are only limited by the imagination of the person planning the attack. However, as you stated, the big threats are already mostly dismantled before they can come to fruition, but it's these little disorganized attacks that are putting people on edge and creating a very dangerous political climate. Sure, they don't cause much damage but if they start happening often enough, you are going to have people walking around paranoid all the time wondering whether or not they are going to get caught up in one of these little attacks. Eventually, that paranoia is going to turn into anger and that anger is going to be directed at the government with people screaming "Why aren't you worthless politicians doing anything about this!?" Next thing you know those people start voting for more authoritarian, populist politicians who promise to do something about it. And I think you'll agree with me that we don't need more Trumps getting elected.

 

[Ryika]

People ARE already paranoid. Even the festivals in the comparably small city that I live in get so much less visitors than in recent years. Hardly surprising when you have dozens of water-tanks in metal cages everywhere that are supposed to stop Trucks of Peace from pacifying unsuspecting visitors against their will. It's like putting up billboards with "YOU'RE IN DANGER!" all over public places.

That whole thing about "minimizing the damage"... yeah, in terms of lives lost maybe. In terms of "Morale", Islamic terrorism is currently more effective than ever.

 

[red_elk]

Problem is that you haven't differentiated how this "proactive policing" differs from the "best" case our Russian friend has described:

Killing suspects in place without trial, based on intelligence gleaned from informants, may have been great for you in a war zone, but it only works in a war zone. Do you think the UK is ready for that?

Well since it's not a full-blown war zone, as you pointed out, I'd prefer the police to arrest terror suspects rather than adopt the "shoot to kill" policy that red_elk seems to be advocating. Hell, we didn't even have a "shoot to kill" policy in Iraq. Our orders were to attempt to capture and only kill if capture isn't possible. The idea being that we want to get intel from these guys, and it is pretty hard to extract information from a corpse.

I don't advocate killing suspects without trial, neither "shoot to kill" policy. Attempts to arrest them will anyway lead to that, in most cases.

 

[Borachio]

I advocate for preparedness for a variety of reasons, but high among them is that it is far easier to discuss real number probabilities with people who aren't emotionally invested, and preparedness reduces that emotional investment. If someone looks at my laundry list of weapons of opportunity and says "wow dude, that's a lot of effort for something that just hardly ever happens" then...great. That's a person who is not likely to buy into the gun lobby's marketing ploys either. If they are someone who says "why don't you just get a gun?" they can be brought into an intelligent conversation about whether that is really easier and/or more effective than me knowing which lamp in the living room is a viable weapon. And ultimately the greatest danger a person is likely to face is their own gun if it is in the hands of someone who hasn't done the headspace preparation I strongly advocate that everyone should do, gun or not.

It's an interesting point of view, you have here.

I'm definitely on-board, though, with the bit I've high-lighted.

I might, in an idle moment, casually look at a ball-point pen and think, yeah, I've seen someone fatally wounded with one of those in a spy movie.

Or I might, if you bring the subject up, think that lumping someone in the back of the head with a 4 foot length of 2 by 2 if I catch them raping a friend of mine would be a really good idea.

But in reality the chances of my taking constructive violent action in just about any situation vanish into the infinitesimal. Especially given my current abilities and natural inclinations.

And then again, I think in principle resorting to violent means is contra-indicated since there will always be someone who is bigger, more violent, and more numerous than whoever is recommending violent means of defence in the first place.

As for defending a loved one from rape, there are many, many things one could do before having to resort to violence oneself. Best of all, is preventing it happening in the first place.

So, although I'd be interested in your list of weapons of opportunity, I think my time might be better spent in developing my own inventory of non-violent means of defence.

My favourite of the moment is a bit of a stern look. It's never to be underestimated, this one. I once reduced a woman behind a counter in a Hospital Pharmacy to tears with it.