In a previous article, I wrote about legitimacy, the unspoken tenth principle of war. In order to do our job effectively, whether on the streets or inside a penal institution, we must be perceived as proceeding in a manner that is fair, impartial, legal and restrained. Sheepdogs (to borrow the metaphor made famous by Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman), never attack the sheep and when they bring wolves to heel, they always do so in a manner dictated by law and policy, absent malice.
Since I wrote the legitimacy article, we have been rocked by a number of incidents from coast to coast that have wounded our profession. Some were contacts with suspects or possible suspects that went from bad to worse and led to fatalities, i.e., in Ferguson, Missouri; New York, New York; Cleveland, Ohio; and Tulsa, Oklahoma. Others in North Charleston, South Carolina and San Bernardino, California were acts of misconduct. The purpose of this article is not to discuss the details of any of these incidents, but rather to talk about the potential consequence of all of these incidents, and others like them in the future, to our profession.
Discerning the center of gravity
One concept that must be understood when plotting how to defeat an opponent is to learn their center of gravity (CoG). Originally developed by Prussian military theorist Carl Von Clausewitz, this concept is defined by law enforcement tactical science expert Charles Heal as “a center of gravity refers to something upon which [your opponent] is dependent for success and which – if eliminated, damaged, diminished, or destroyed – will severely hamper his opportunities for success.” When we consider how to combat violent suspects, inmates in a disturbance, etc., we must discern their center of gravity in order to put together an effective plan to defeat them.
For example, in a cell extraction, the cell in which an inmate is barricaded is most likely his center of gravity. By barricading himself inside his cell, an inmate restricts the avenue of approach of officers, prohibiting them from effectively massing. You can have twenty officers, but he only has to deal with the ones at the door. When the team does force its way in, it ends this incident by defeating the inmate’s center of gravity. Another tactic is compromising the inmate’s environment through such benign things as shutting off his water or refusing to feed him. Officers can also move toward more overt actions like inserting chemical agents or other less lethal devices may cause the space to be so compromised he abandons it, which achieves the same result.
Exploiting critical vulnerabilities
A corollary principle to center of gravity is critical vulnerability. Heal defines this concept as “a weakness which, if exploited, will create failure.”
In our cell extraction example, the inmate’s lack of mobility is a critical vulnerability. So too is his lack of resources and supplies. These vulnerabilities provide us with tactical options.
A dynamic entry may not even be necessary; it might be more prudent to wait until the inmate runs out of resources and surrenders. Please do not confuse this strategy with the old tactical myth that “time is on our side.”
That’s because time is not on anybody’s side; time is competitive between opponents. Each side tries to use time to their advantage, but there are occasions when waiting might make more sense when it helps to exploit a critical vulnerability.
Defeat by public opinion
It is vital to appreciate that there are forces out there studying the center of gravity of the entire law enforcement and corrections profession. The explosion of social media in recent years has only increased the number of potential adversaries with which we must contend. It would be unwise to underestimate anyone, be they as large as the ACLU or as small as a blogger.
In the 1960s, the United States military had never lost a war. Yet the tiny country of North Vietnam defeated the combined arms of the American military because the leadership of that country studied and understood the center of gravity of the United States. It had nothing to do with the potential and prowess of Americans fighting on the ground, seas and air in and around Vietnam. It had everything to do with public opinion back home.
In other words, the legitimacy of the war in the eyes of Americans was the center of gravity of the United States. When the North Vietnamese understood this, they did everything within their power to exploit it. The Tet Offensive in 1968 was an overwhelming military defeat for the North Vietnamese Army and their Viet Cong allies, but strategically it achieved all of its objectives. Anti-war protests skyrocketed and President Lyndon Johnson announced that he would not seek reelection. Richard Nixon took office in 1969 not trying to win the war in Vietnam, but instead seeking ways to get us out of it.
Our center of gravity under attack
Legitimacy through public trust and confidence is also law enforcement’s center of gravity and it is that very thing that has been under attack this past year. There is a rush for transparency nationwide as law enforcement agencies scramble to purchase body cameras and reach out to their communities for better relations. But make no mistake, our true enemies are not just interested in transparency, they are interested in neutering us and finding as many ways as possible to take legitimate tools away from us while demonizing us.
Why? Money, advancing political agendas, take your pick. That really doesn’t matter. What does matter is that we not give them any reason to advance their cause. If you recall, I stated that a corollary principle to center of gravity is critical vulnerability. What’s law enforcement and corrections’ critical vulnerability that if exploited will lead to the compromise of our center of gravity? Well, that would be the apparent unwillingness by too many of our peers to recognize this as our center of gravity as demonstrated by the improper, inappropriate, insensitive or illegal actions of some members of our profession. These acts often leave our leaders vulnerable and reeling as they try to figure ways to explain what at times is beyond reasonable explanation.
But culpability also exists at the top. There is an old law enforcement trainer’s adage that goes, “the first thing cut in the budget is training and the first thing we are likely sued over is failure to train.” The military does two things: train and fight. How about us? All too often training is viewed as a burden and when training is provided officers are compelled to attend training classes that have little to do with perishable skills, but rather with state mandates. If managers and executives do not provide their personnel with the appropriate tools and training, then they should not be too surprised by the results in force encounters with violent suspects/inmates.
Conclusion
If the results turn out badly or are perceived that way, LEOs and COs all can expect to be second-guessed, but what is there to say when video or the facts of a force incident show our partners acting in a manner that is out of control or illegal? We owe it to our communities, we owe to our partners, we owe it to our families and ourselves to ensure that neither we nor our partners act in a manner that brings discredit to our profession. The inappropriate acts of the few do tremendous harm and undermine the noble acts of the many.
Again returning to Dave Grossman’s metaphor, we are society’s sheepdogs. The silent majority appreciate the job that we do in this role, even if they do not fully understand it. Please remain noble. Defend the sheep. Handle the wolves as you were trained to do. And protect our center of gravity and do not, through your actions or inactions, become a critical vulnerability.