Policing Advance Access published December 13, 2007 1 Article Militarization and Policing—Its Relevance to 21st Century Police Peter B. Kraska∗ Abstract This work examines the blurring distinctions between the police and military institutions and between war and law enforcement. In this article, the author asserts that understanding this blur, and the associated organizing concepts militarization and militarism, are essential for accurately analyzing the changing nature of security, and the activity of policing, in the late-modern era of the 21st century. Simplicity is comforting. Modernity’s basic to clearly demarcate the two is usually seen dichotomies such as fact/value, private/public, as an indicator of repressiveness and lack of and national/international simplify our think- democracy. ing and lull us into intellectual complacency. My research and writing has been challeng- Police academics in the United States, with ing this dichotomy since the late 1980s. Its only a few exceptions, have been quite com- central thesis has remained steadfast, and may fortable with the military/police dichotomy. be viewed at this point in history as an obvious The US military handles external security point to the keenly observant: we have been through the threat and practice of war. The witnesses to a little noticed but nonetheless civilian police handle internal security through momentous historical change–the traditional the enforcement of federal and local laws. Most assume that studying the police and military distinctions between military/police, war/law is a mutually exclusive undertaking. Taking enforcement, and internal/external security this dichotomy for granted is understandable are rapidly blurring. Over the past 15 years, given that the clear demarcation between the I have researched and traced the evolution police and military has been considered a pre- of two interrelated trends that embody this eminent feature of the modern nation-state blur: the militarization of US police and crime (Giddens, 1985). The failure of a government control, and the police-ization of the US *Professor and Senior Research Fellow, College of Justice and Strategy, Eastern Kentucky University, USA E-mail: [email protected] Policing, pp. 1–13 doi:10.1093/police/pam065 The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions please e-mail: [email protected] 2 Policing Article P. B. Kraska military. Empirical indicators of these con- • a redefining of criminality to ‘insur- verging trends include the following: gency,’ and crime control to ‘low- intensity conflict’—requiring counter- • the significant erosion of the 1878 insurgency measures carried out by both Posse Comitatus Act by the United the US military and civilian police. States, which previous to the early 1980s This article submits that understanding this prohibited the military involvement blur, and the associated organizing concepts in internal security or police matters, militarization and militarism, are essential for except under the most extreme circum- accurately analyzing the changing nature of stances, leading to an unprecedented security, and the activity of policing, in the level of US armed forces’ involvement late-modern era of the 21st century. Police in internal security matters; leaders, in particular, will have to be increas- ingly cognizant and wary of the implications • the adventof an unprecedentedcoopera- and potential consequences of this conver- tive relationship between the US military gence, and the attendant social forces of and US civilian police at both the high- militarism and militarization. The aim of this est and lowest level of organization, article, then, is to expose and sensitize the including technology transfers, massive reader to what we might call a martial theo- military weapons transfers, information retical orientation. The idea here is to employ sharing between the military and police this orientation as a type of conceptual lens, targeted at domestic security, a close or interpretive construct, which when peered operational relationship in both drug through, will help us assess and accurately control and terrorism control efforts, make sense of current trends in the police and a high level of cross-training in institution, the activity of policing, crime con- the area of special weapons and tactics trol, and warfare. team (SWAT) and counter-civil distur- bance, counterinsurgency, and antiter- The militarism/militarization con- rorism exercises; ceptual lens applied to the police The concepts in which I have centered the • the steep growth and normalization bulk of my work are ‘militarization’ and of police special operations units (e.g. ‘militarism.’ Despite these terms’ pejorative SWAT teams) that are modelled after undertones for some, they are most often used (not identical to) elite military special in academe as rigorous organizing concepts operations groups; that help us to think more clearly about the influence war and the military model have on • a growing tendency by the police and different aspects of society. other segments of the criminal justice Assessing whether a civilian police force, system to rely on the military/war model for example, is becoming ‘militarized’ should for formulating crime/drug/terrorism not be viewed as an antipolice or an antimil- control rationale and operations; and itary pursuit. Evaluating police militarization Militarization and Policing Article Policing 3 is a credible and important endeavor, and it • Operational—patterns of activity mod- can be accomplished through empirical evi- eled after the military such as in dence and rigorous scholarship. Of course, the the areas of intelligence, supervision, integrity of this endeavor hinges on the clarity handling high-risk situations, or war- of our concepts. making/restoration (e.g. weed and seed). Militarism, in its most basic sense, is an ideology focused on the best means to solve It should be obvious that the police since problems. It is a set of beliefs, values, and their inception have been to some extent assumptions that stress the use of force and ‘militarized.’ After all, the foundation of mil- threat of violence as the most appropriate and itary and police power is the same—the state efficacious means to solve problems. It empha- sanctioned capacity to use physical force to sizes the exercise of military power, hardware, accomplish their respective objectives (exter- organization, operations, and technology as nal and internal security) (discussed further its primary problem-solving tools. Militariza- in Kraska, 1994). Therefore, the real concern tion is the implementation of the ideology, when discerning police militarization is one militarism. It is the process of arming, orga- of degree—or put differently, the extent to nizing, planning, training for, threatening, and which a civilian police body is militarized. sometimes implementing violent conflict. To Police militarization, in all countries and across any time in history, must be conceived militarize means adopting and applying the of as the degree or extent of militarization. central elements of the military model to an Any assertion that the police are or are not organization or particular situation. militarized is simply misguided. This is a Police militarization, therefore, is simply the nuance easily overlooked by police analysts process whereby civilian police increasingly who react defensively to using these organiz- draw from, and pattern themselves around, ing concepts (Kraska, 1999). They reason that the tenets of militarism andthe military model. because a police paramilitary squad such as a As seen in Figure 1, four dimensions of the mil- US SWAT team retains key attributes of civil- itary model provide us with tangible indicators ian police—for example not being allowed to of police militarization: indiscriminately kill—the concepts of ‘mili- • material—martial weaponry, equip- tarization’ or ‘militarism’ do not apply. This ment, and advanced technology; encourages a one-dimensional conceptual lens which sees police as either being militarized • cultural—martial language, style or not. The point here is that any analysis (appearance), beliefs, and values; of militarization among civilian police has to focus on where the civilian police fall on • organizational—martial arrangements the continuum—culturally, organizationally, such as ‘command and control’ centers operationally, and materially—and in what [e.g. (COMPSTAT)], or elite squads of direction they are currently headed (Kraska, officers patterned after military special 1999). operations patrolling high-crime areas It is worth noting that beyond the police, (as opposed to the traditional officer on militarism and militarization can operate the beat); as powerful theoretical lenses to make 4 Policing Article P. B. Kraska To militarize means adopting and applying the central elements of the military model to an organization or particular situation. Police militarization, therefore, is simply the process whereby civilian police increasingly draw from, and pattern themselves around, the military model. The figure below illustrates the four central dimensions of the military model that constitute tangible indicators of militarization. Because the police have always been “militaristic” to some degree throughout their history, any analysis of militarization among civilian police has to focus on where the civilian police fall on the continuum and in what direction they are