The twenty first century dawned with a scourge of terrorism attacks. The main one being the September 11. Terrorism has since become a global threat that requires security agents to stay alert in countering and mitigating any threats. Reuveny and Thompson (2010) claim that terrorism attacks are used to induce fear for the propagators to gain their individual benefits. In light of this, the government of the United States of America has consistently taken measures that are aimed at combating terrorism. One of these control measures involved employing the military techniques and resources in their operations. The coordinated and collaborative operation plan raised an array of heated debates of whether it was positive or it was going to yield adverse impacts. Therefore, this paper aims at analyzing the use of military techniques by the FBI agents and find out whether it is worth or it is not a good choice.
Combs (2015) assert that the current situation in terrorism requires modern methods such as global surveillance and international coordination. This implies that terrorists have gone a notch higher and they have institutionalized their systems and employed high-tech methods in their criminal activities. Reuveny and Thompson (2010) believe that authorities should focus on asymmetrical aspects such as disentangling the technology used by terrorists and interactions between state forces. Traditional ways such as military actions cannot be effective in combating their well-organized systems. Therefore, FBI employing the military techniques implies that they will be overtaken by the criminals and out-done. One difference between the FBI and the military is that they are officers and soldiers respectively. An officer should gain intelligence reports that will be viable in countering an impending threat. A soldier on the other hand is trained on engaging an enemy physically which means if the enemy uses modernized ways such as technology he or she will surpass the soldier she is physically waiting to engage in a fight. As aforementioned, in the 21st century the authorities should consider gaining intelligence reports from their colleagues from other nations and using it to combat terror (Combs, 2015). The FBI is in the best position in handling this kind of work as compared to the military.
Similarly, the use of military resources by the FBI agents would not be a prudent way due to a number of reasons. Firstly, the FBI agents are not conversant with the use of military equipment such as the combat engineering vehicle. The military undergoes through training on using the machinery for quite some times. It would be insensible to deploy the FBI agents with equipment that they have not received rigorous training. Secondly, this specific equipment is used in clearing obstacles such as walls or destroys buildings. The moment this machinery is deployed, the enemy realizes that it is a war and he or she is ready to counter-attack. In most cases, the FBI agents are supposed to collect evidence and apprehend the culprit for further interrogation (Combs, 2015). It is quite common that the employment of the combat engineering vehicle will compromise with the investigation. Thirdly, methods used by the military officers contradict with the ones used by the FBI agents. For example, an article on Los Angeles Times stated that the military tactic worried the FBI agents (Schmitt, 2008). The American Civil Liberties and the U.S. Justice Departmentshowed a report by the FBI that stated the military uses coercive methods while interrogating suspects (Schmitt, 2008). Methods such as water board and physical torture were reported by the FBI which contradicts their legal abiding laws.
Significantly, the military action is employed where there is a war and the combatants are identified. The army fights on the fields or the severe endangered places which have been identified to host criminals. However, this is discredited when the criminal are intermingled with the civilians. This means that using military action in such situations would lead to injuring innocent civilians. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1978 prohibits the federal troops from to willfully use any part of the army methods in executing the laws. An example of a militarized raid that yielded casualties is the fifty-one day FBI siege by the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team on the Branch Davidian residence. Property was destroyed and there were injuries succumbed by the innocent civilians.
In conclusion, the FBI comprises federal troops who are trained distinctively from the military. This means that their roles are completely different; however, terrorism is a plight that requires coordination and collaborative effort. The FBI should gather intelligence and act accordingly to counteract any impending danger. They should share the information with the military in order to put in a collaborative effort in bringing down terrorism. It is quite clear that FBI lack the requisite skills in dealing with the military resources and machinery. Similarly, federal troops are known for gathering evidence and apprehending the culprit while the military is known as a destructive machine. Therefore, military techniques should be used in the battlefields while the FBI concentrates in cases that are more of investigative nature.
Combs, C. (2015).Terrorism in the twenty-first century.7th ed. Pearson. Press
Reuveny, R. & Thompson, W. (2010).Contemporary terrorism.Sunypress.edu. 1-20. Retrieved from: http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/62083.pdf
Schmitt, R. (21 May 2008). Military tactics worried FBI interrogators. Los Angeles Times.Retrieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/21/nation/na-fbi21