Boston Review leans kind of leftward, but they have a really good in-depth review of counter-terrorism relations between the federal government and state and local law-enforcement officials in the United States.
There are a lot of interests and issues at play here, from disrupted funding patterns of the 1990s to the real trade-offs between aggressive anti-terrorism needs and local law enforcement needs. By the time you're done reading, you'll have an excellent overview of a complex and necessary relationship.
Not that I agree with all the points in this article, it does raise good points worth discussion. Professionally I've been in local law enforcement as an investigator for over thirty years and have worked with regional, state, and federal law enforcement (LE) agencies.
The public's perception of law enforcement is largely formed by media accounts and fictional portrayals. The media's representation is often distorted and not very realistic. Read what the MSM reports on what's happening on the ground in Iraq and then read what Omar and his brother report in their blog, Iraq the Model.
Local, regional, and state law enforcement (LE) must network from the bottom up. We can't wait for federal solutions that may be years in coming. The Lone Ranger and Tonto from DC will not be riding into town anytime soon to the rescue. Local LE agencies are the "domestic boots" on the ground in this War On Terror. We must collectively with the American people to protect our own backyards.
In war it's paramount to know your enemy, it's ideology, to do threat/risk analysis of strategic targets subject to attack to optimize the deployment of defensive resources and first before all else, protect your base before launching counter offensives.
The relative risk of elderly ladies, which are hassled at airport gates because of wire in their bras, approaches zero. They are unlikely to be suicidal Islamofascist terrorists. As any online gamer freak knows protect your base first:
“All your base belong to us”
The traditional LE paradigm is ill equipped to deal with an embedded, asymmetrical, cunning enemy with a religious cult like mission to convert or kill every one of us. The criminal justice system is very reactionary in operation. This almost ensures the enemy a first strike option. The danger here is a strike with unconventional weapons that is not prevented, deterred, or deflected could have disastrous and societal destabilizing consequences.
A fundamental flaw with public sector civilian government is it is very risk averse. Institutional inertia preserves the status quo and stifles imagination, innovation, and creativity as evidenced by the 9/ll reports. Further it is unwilling to take certain actions that may be perceived as politically incorrect.
The enemy will exploit these weaknesses and shove our heads up where the "Sun doesn't shine," if we don't act from an offensive mindset. For instance the enemy is free now to infiltrate our porous national borders because of political inaction. You can't win a war by only playing defense.
YOU MUST PLAY OFFENSE - DAH!!!
For further see this on the HSPIG site at:
THE EVENT CLOCK IS TICKING . . . Al-Qaeda seen planning for 'spectacular' attack
Ron Wright, Moderator
HSPIG Forums Site
www.hspig.org
The HSPIG Forums Section has over 2000 articles, essays, and other useful information on the War On Terror.