![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Okay, I shouldn't get involved in these things. In fact, in this instance I probably have very little right to get involved, seeing as how I'm not even American. But ... regarding the whole Brigade of US military to patrol home turf thing, I have been arguing with a man of the military persuasive, whom I should probably apologise to because I was angry and annoyed and as a result was incredibly insulting to the poor man. But ... listen to this. Just listen:
At one point he said that :
As a rule, the US army doesn't HAVE to use force, since the average citizen of this country realizes that they can't outgun us, and that when the army shows up, the chaos comes to a screeching halt.
Which ... is not at all a naive thing to say, but anyway. I was admittedly very rude in responding:
*shakes head* That's right, dear. Desperate and/or frightened men have never panicked and run at superior forces before, in all the history of the world. Didn't you know that? (And in case you didn't expect it from a 'paranoiac of dubious literacy', that was what is usually called sarcasm, dear boy.)
Now, aside from the fact that I can get extraordinarily patronising when I'm pissed off, I thought that made sense. But his response frankly terrified me:
And yes, stupid people have done stupid things throughout history. Including trying to take on the US Army without adequate firepower.
And yes, people like me, including both myself and more than a few of my regular readers, have killed them for it. Part of the price of doing business.
Well, THANK YOU, sir! Because that there, in a nutshell, is precisely why you do not task a military force with dealing with civil unrest. All it takes is for *one person* to do exactly that, to panic, to forget who and what they are dealing with, and then ... can we all say Tiananmen Square? Can we say Bloody Sunday? Can we, in fact, say bloodbath?
The military is, for some pretty excellent reasons, trained to deal with an enemy as quickly and effiiently as possible. The problem is ... in a civil unrest situation, for example a riot, would you care to define the term 'enemy'? Would you care to point him out in the crowd of panicked civilians? The man running at you screaming, is he attacking or running from the chaos at his back?
And more, in a protest, for example, would you care to tell me what the man has done to be labelled an enemy? Would you care to tell me why he has earned the attentions of a force designed to fight enemies of the state?
But hey! All hail the conquering hero!
Oh gods.
As a rule, the US army doesn't HAVE to use force, since the average citizen of this country realizes that they can't outgun us, and that when the army shows up, the chaos comes to a screeching halt.
Which ... is not at all a naive thing to say, but anyway. I was admittedly very rude in responding:
*shakes head* That's right, dear. Desperate and/or frightened men have never panicked and run at superior forces before, in all the history of the world. Didn't you know that? (And in case you didn't expect it from a 'paranoiac of dubious literacy', that was what is usually called sarcasm, dear boy.)
Now, aside from the fact that I can get extraordinarily patronising when I'm pissed off, I thought that made sense. But his response frankly terrified me:
And yes, stupid people have done stupid things throughout history. Including trying to take on the US Army without adequate firepower.
And yes, people like me, including both myself and more than a few of my regular readers, have killed them for it. Part of the price of doing business.
Well, THANK YOU, sir! Because that there, in a nutshell, is precisely why you do not task a military force with dealing with civil unrest. All it takes is for *one person* to do exactly that, to panic, to forget who and what they are dealing with, and then ... can we all say Tiananmen Square? Can we say Bloody Sunday? Can we, in fact, say bloodbath?
The military is, for some pretty excellent reasons, trained to deal with an enemy as quickly and effiiently as possible. The problem is ... in a civil unrest situation, for example a riot, would you care to define the term 'enemy'? Would you care to point him out in the crowd of panicked civilians? The man running at you screaming, is he attacking or running from the chaos at his back?
And more, in a protest, for example, would you care to tell me what the man has done to be labelled an enemy? Would you care to tell me why he has earned the attentions of a force designed to fight enemies of the state?
But hey! All hail the conquering hero!
Oh gods.
