My point was the old principle that "might makes right" (where here, "right" does not refer to what's morally right but what people _see_ as morally right). The Lawnorder that the military can impose wouldn't be especially law-abiding (but then again, it wasn't very law-abiding in Chicago when I lived near there). It's more a matter of Order with a bit of law as a chaser, a state of siege.
On 4/1/06, Josh Narins <josh at narins.net> wrote:
> > The military _can_ do law & order. Enough troops would solve the
> > problem. Of course, it would be a totalitarian solution (a la Falujah)
> > and would encourage opposition.
>
> The trained MPs can do a passable job.
>
> But other than that, you are deadly wrong.
>
> The fundamental difference between war and police operations is how you
> treat possibly suspicious people.
>
> A policeperson is trained to see citizens,
> a soldier is trained to see threats.
>
> It's a totally different mindset.
>
> -Josh
> US Marine for a little while
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles