Now the dust has settled from yet another terrorist attack on our military are we any better off from this tragic event. Has anything been done to prevent future incidents?
One thing we have learned is many American are feed up with these senseless and possibly preventable acts of violence. So much it created an unintended consequence the government has had to deal with; which is the armed civilian presence near recruiting stations. I can appreciate this gesture, it is nice to see these Americans willing to take a stand and defend those who defend us abroad. However, is this a productive activity or political grandstanding. Will an armed presence at military recruiting stations deter future events? Honestly, I have some doubts and here is why.
Blame failed foreign policy
It is more of a trick question. The real issue has to do with this administration’s terrorist policy, something well beyond the scope of this blog. Instead, focusing on the likelihood of another event and whether the armed presence is a effective or feel good seems more productive. It seems prudent to consider future events sense we have created such a welcomed environment. With little deterrence in the form of foreign policy, porous borders and a legal system akin to a yapping lap dog I’d say it is reasonable to expect future incidents. Now, how do we deter these incidents from happening because “gun free” zones continue to fail.
Be gone “gun free” zones
We need a public acknowledgement “gun free” zones are failures, they do not deter a willing and dedicated perpetrator from committing violent acts. From there, we need to respectfully ask the public their armed presence is appreciated, but not needed. The reason it is not needed can be summed up rather simply; incompetence. Yes, when I see these well intended people standing guard visibly armed it is feel good rather than effective. We must assume the perpetrators will have conducted reconnaissance on their targets. If the force protection measure is visible, it is defeatable.
Watch them watching their targets
In this case, the unprepared armed presence would be noted and measures taken to defeat them. If you truly wanted to help, then you would not let your presence be known. You would not be standing in front of the recruiter station, you would be standing in a position where you have a good vantage point to see traffic approaching, loitering and even long term observation.
I don’t believe the efforts we saw would really stop a dedicated terrorist attack. We must assume again if they can see the force protection measures they can be defeated. In this case, we are talking about engaging the “security force” as they approach the target. Now, how effective are these security teams, how good are they at gunfighting. My guess is not very good because if they were, they wouldn’t have put themselves in that position from the beginning feel good or not. An American gunfighter would not compromise his position, would not telegraph his intention nor make it easy for the bad guys to engage them. They are waiting, patiently surveying the scene and prepared to counter with surgical violence.
If that does not make sense to you, then you are the wrong person for the job. Don’t make it any harder than it already is, because you want to make a statement.
"Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees the others." Aristotle,