Terrorism — military or police problem?

There has been an ongoing debate since 2001 over whether the best response to terrorism is military or police. This column argues that the tragic events in Paris demonstrate the folly of treating terrorists as criminals. A follow-up rebuttal column argues just the opposite, that the French experience doesn’t lend any credence to the necessity of treating terrorism as war.

Advertisements

One Response to “Terrorism — military or police problem?”

  1. Gunther Says:

    When the British were fighting the communists in Malaysia during the late 40s, 50s and early 60s, Sir Rawdon Briggs laid down his plan that fighting terrorism was to be the responsibility of the police not the military due to the different philosophies between a soldier and a police officer. Sir Briggs’ plan also include social, political, and economic reforms to help undercut the Communists, but he was never given the political powers to carry out it. Luckily, the Prime Minister Churchill and Briggs’ successor Sir Gerald Walter Robert Templer embrace the Briggs’ plan and Sir Templer was given the necessary powers to carry out Briggs’ plan even when he had to step on people’s toes to do so.

    In addition, the Malaysian police was given a new police commissioner named Arthur Young who turn the force around in only 1 to 2 years. Sadly, Sir Young couldn’t bring the necessary reforms when he was put in charge of the Kenya Police during the Mau Mau insurgency since the British settlers had too much political power in the colonial government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: