With the recent increases in violent crime in parts of the nation versus the downward trends of American solider causalities in Iraq there may be some valuable lessons to be learned from what we now know as the "Petraeus Doctrine," authored by U.S. Army General David Petraeus, Commanding General of the Multi-National Force - Iraq.
The practice of what we call "Community Oriented Policing" today has its roots as far back as the 1800s in England when Sir Robert Peel stated, "The police are the public and the public are the police" which when broken down simply means we need to involve the citizens of our communities to help solve, prevent and stop crime. Although this seems like a common sense approach, as we entered into the late 1960s and early '70s, with civil unrest and rioting becoming a common place event for those who were protesting the war, civil rights movements etc, there became a wall between those who serve to protect us and the people they protect.
In 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice created the "COPS Office" - Community Oriented Police Services - through the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. As stated on the COPS Office web site, "The mission of the COPS Office is to advance the practice of community policing as an effective strategy to improve public safety. Moving from a reactive to proactive role, community policing offers a shift from more traditional law enforcement practices. By addressing the root causes of criminal and disorderly behavior, rather than simply responding to crimes once they have been committed, community policing concentrates on preventing both crime and the fear it creates. Community policing also encourages operational strategies and the development of mutually beneficial relationships between law enforcement and the community. By earning the trust of the members of their communities and making those citizens stakeholders in their own safety, law enforcement can better understand and address the community's needs, and the factors that contribute to crime."
The overall COPS philosophy involves three main elements; Organization, Tactical and External. Under Organization Elements listed as number 4 of the 5 components comes Utilization of Volunteer Resources. As stated, "Community policing encourages the use of non-law enforcement resources within a law enforcement agency. Volunteerism involves active citizen participation with their law enforcement agency. The law enforcement organization educates the public about ways that they can partner with the organization and its members to further community policing, and provides an effective means for citizen input. Volunteer efforts can help to free up officer time, and allow sworn personnel to be more proactive and prevention oriented. Examples of such resources might include police reserves, volunteers, Explorer Scouts, service organizations, and citizen or youth police academies."
Enhancing the system
With the renewed interest and formal implementation of Community Oriented Policing, agencies that have embraced the concept fully have seen good successes. However, the key is the full implementation of the program which includes the use of volunteers within the department. As stated above, in addition to having citizens on board to help free up officers with non-enforcement duties, this also provides an open path of communications for both sides to better understand each other.
While this makes great sense, for those cities that are truly "under the gun" and are experiencing increased or ongoing violent crime rates from gangs, drug dealers and street thugs, I'd like to suggest taking COPS to the next level which I call E-COP, or "Enhanced COP".
Implementing the Petraeus Doctrine in your city
Fortunately not ever city in the nation is so bad that the citizens are afraid to speak out and stand up to the criminal element but where it does occur, the lessons learned from the "Petraeus Doctrine" may be helpful in attempting to get the upper hand on crime. Simply stated, the Petraeus Doctrine not only put the soldiers where they were most needed, out on the front lines in the streets of Iraq, but also encourage the citizens of Iraq to actively start standing up to the terrorist knowing the American soldiers would be there with them, 24/7, not just for a quick sweep through city and moving on, as in the past. Taking this new approach overcame the three main components that the terrorist needed to win:
First, the enemy (or in our case the street thugs) need people to act in certain ways: For terrorist to be successful means citizens having sympathy for them, acquiescence, and being silent, in order to survive and further their strategy. Unless the population acts in these ways, both terrorist and organized street thugs will find it more difficult to survive and the cycle of violence that drives the sectarian conflict in Iraq, or the gang wars in our streets, can begin to fade... but not go away completely.
Second, the enemy is fluid, but the population is fixed. In the case of Iraq, the enemy is fluid because they have no permanent installations they need to defend, and can always run away to fight another day. The population is fixed because people are tied to their homes, businesses, farms, tribal areas, relatives etc. Protecting the population is possible, but destroying the enemy while in the community is much more difficult. We can drive them away from the population, then introduce local security forces along with economic and political development, and thus keep the enemy out of the environment, preventing their return. As this relates to our nation's cities, while street thugs are not running off to the mountains to hide, for many they're isn't a fixed residence, so they tend to move from friend's home to friend's home or in and out of jail for various misdemeanors until law enforcement is able to put them away for longer prison terms. They take themselves out of the picture from gang violence, what I refer to as "either a bullet or bars" approach.
Third, the enemy may not be identifiable, but the population is. In any given area in Iraq, there are multiple threat groups but only one, or sometimes two, main local population groups. We could do great damage to potential supporters "destroying the haystack to find the needle," but we don't need to. We know who the population is that we need to protect; we know where they live, and we can protect them without disruption to their lives. More to the point, we can help them protect themselves, with our forces and Iraq Security Force assisting and eventually taking over.
As this relates to the E-COPs, this is where the "E" comes in for "Enhanced" community support. Once the citizens of our violent cities realize members of law enforcement are really there to help them, it's time for them to make the decision to stand up and be part of the solution to keep their communities safe. While the traditional COP's program calls for "Utilization of Volunteer Resources" within your department, I'm suggesting a more aggressive approach. Engaging citizens in any form of volunteerism within your department is great and can only help to bridge the gaps in your community, however utilizing your citizens on the front lines and empowering them to take a stand may be necessary in crime ridden areas. Having said that, unless they are trained and certified to do so, such as Reserve Officers, by no means am I suggesting they put themselves directly into an enforcement role. Instead they can play a true "Eyes and Ears" role on the streets. Various methods for doing so may include utilizing trained volunteers to staff Sky Watch Towers used to over watch large problem areas; video taping drug corners or other high crime areas from a safe and secure location; and, of course, traditional programs such as Citizens on Patrol. By doing this, the street thugs would be the ones left wondering who in the community is their prey and who is taking a stand. This would change the old assumption that everyone was their prey and no one would take a stand. It's one thing to retaliate against a few citizens who have be identified as a standing up to them but when a large portion of the community is standing up to them, but it turns the tables on them and now they become the prey, which is the way it should be.
For those reading this article thinking the war in Iraq is thousands of miles away in a completely different environment from our nations streets with nothing to be learned from it, just ask any Homeland Security expert from a large city law enforcement unit where they go to learn cutting edge methods to combat terrorism. The answer will most likely be Israel. Sadly, because of all the bloodshed and senseless killings that have taken place in Israel from suicide bombers, their security forces have been forced to step up methods of detection and prevention and in doing so have greatly reduced the number of bombings to almost zero within major population zones. When all is said and done, I suggest to you that there is very little difference between organized gangs of street thugs wanting to control their turf by intimidating citizens and the terrorist roaming the streets of Iraq. Studying what appears to date to be a successful strategy in Iraq may be worth your time if traditional methods have not worked for your community in the past or present.
I wish all those in uniform who serve our great nation, both abroad and on the streets of our cities a very safe and Happy New Year!
