Bret Devereaux

I think anyone who reads the blog probably knows what I'm going to say, but: Calling in elements of the military to deal with civil protest and civil unrest is a bad idea that is likely to lead to more violence, not less. 1/16

This is not what soldiers are trained to do. Yes, there is a riot control field manual (FM 3-19.15; you can find the 2005 version here: https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf … ). Yes, they have some training. But this is not the primary mission they prepared for. And as we've discussed... 2/16

...when you ask a force to do a mission outside of their core training and competence, things tend to go more than a little bit screwy. Introducing military force into these sorts of circumstances generally tends to escalate, not calm down, the situation. 3/16

Now the state has the advantage - it has more violence. So it can 'win' in the short term by escalating the violence. But you cannot govern a country through violence. You govern a country through power. Let me explain, by way of a summary of H. Arendt's "On Violence" 4/16

Power is how you get the public to comply without using violence, or even the direct threat of violence. As I tell my students: - If you run a red light, and get stopped by a cop, that's state violence; they have a weapon and are going to make you do things... 5/16

...that is power. Power arises out of legitimacy, it arises out of cultural norms, it arises out of reciprocity with authority. Foolish leaders mistake violence for a kind of power - this is Arendt's key point. They think more violence=more power... 7/16

...but that's wrong. Where you have power, you don't need violence. And where you use violence *you*don't*have*power.* The very *use* of violence erodes power, because it strikes at the legitimacy that power arises from. 8/16