Read on Twitter
"Light 'em up"
The militarization of the police isn't just about equipment. It's also importing a particular counterinsurgency mindset that sees all civilians as suspect and deems them legitimate targets of violence the moment they fail to 'comply'
The militarization of the police isn't just about equipment. It's also importing a particular counterinsurgency mindset that sees all civilians as suspect and deems them legitimate targets of violence the moment they fail to 'comply'
Counterinsurgency theories argue that the population is the terrain of modern conflict: subversive enemies use the population to hide, and rally it as a resource. To stamp out insurgency, the thinking goes, it is necessary to control the population./2
But counterinsurgency theory also makes two more logical moves that justify using full force against civilians. /3
The first is to claim that in using the population as a shield, insurgents exempts themselves from the normal protections for civilians. They don't follow the rules, so the rules don't apply. /4
The second is the important one: because the insurgent is invisible, they are only revealed through their failure to respect the 'order' imposed by the counterinsurgent. In essence: if you break the rules, you are automatically marked out as an enemy. /5
Why does this matter? First, it self-justifies violence against any civilian: if disobedience (construed extremely widely) signals an insurgent and insurgents aren't subject to the normal rules, cops can deploy whatever violence they like against anyone. /6
Second — and more importantly — this narrative invents an enemy. Counterinsurgency doesn't need an insurgency to exist. It justifies it's own existence by creating 'insurgents.' Police riots in a very real way create the violence cops need to justify their COIN narrative. /7
I highly recommend reading @stschrader1 and @BernardHarcourt on the ways counterinsurgent thinking has reshaped policing in the U.S. going back to the Cold War. /fin
