Lone Wolves in the USA (new title)

[Bob's World]

Well, then by all means, attack the symptoms (repeat as necessary).

[jmm99]

The NRA's Press Conference today was headlined by the Wash Post, NRA’s Wayne LaPierre: Put ‘armed police officers’ in every school (Sean Sullivan, December 21, 2012) (LaPierre has proposed this before).

The Post also has provided the transcript, Remarks from the NRA press conference on Sandy Hook school shooting, delivered on Dec. 21, 2012 (Transcript). It includes closing remarks by Asa Hutchinson (Wiki bio), which outlines a two-pronged approach to school security:

HUTCHINSON: We all understand that our children should be safe in school. But it is also essential that the parents understand and have confidence in that safety. As a result of the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, that confidence across this nation has been shattered. Assurance of school safety must be restored with a sense of urgency.

That is why I’m grateful that the National Rifle Association has asked me to lead a team of security experts to assist our schools, parents, and our communities.

I took this assignment on one condition, that my team of experts will be independent and will be guided solely by what are the best security solutions for the safety of our children while at school. Even though we are just starting this process, I envision this initiative will have two key elements.

First of all, it would be based on a model security plan, a comprehensive strategy for school security based upon the latest, most up-to-date technical information from the foremost experts in their fields. This model security plan will serve as a template, a set of best practices, principles, and guidelines that every school in America can tweak as needed and tailor to their own set of circumstances.

Every school and community is different, but this model security plan will allow every school to choose among its various components to develop a school safety strategy that fits their own unique circumstance, whether its a large urban school or a small rural school such as we have in Arkansas or anything in between.

Armed, trained, qualified school security personnel will be one element of that plan, but by no means, the only element. If a school decides, for whatever reason, that it doesn’t want or need armed security personnel, that, of course, is a decision to be made by the parents and the local school board at the local level.

HUTCHINSON: The second point I want to make is that this will be a program that does not depend on massive funding from local authorities or the federal government. Instead, it will make use of local volunteers serving in their own communities.

In my home state of Arkansas, my son was a volunteer with a local group called Watchdog Dads (ph) who volunteer their time at schools, who patrol playgrounds and provide a measure of added security. President Clinton initiated a program called Cops In School, but the federal response is not sufficient for today’s task.

Whether they’re retired police, retired military, or rescue personnel, I think there are people in every community in this country who would be happy to serve if only someone asked them and gave them the training and certifications to do so.

The National Rifle Association is the natural obvious choice to sponsor this program. Their gun safety, marksmanship, and hunter education programs have set the standard for well over a century. Over the past 25 years, their Eddy Eagle (ph) gun safe program has taught over 26 million kids that real guns aren’t toys, and today child gun accidents are at the lowest levels ever recorded.

School safety is a complex issue with no simple, single, solution, but I believe trained, qualified, armed security is one key component among many that can provide the first line of difference as well as the last line of defense.

Regards

Mike

[carl]

Well, then by all means, attack the symptoms (repeat as necessary).

Bob:

I done my bit by providing some superficial tactical things that attack only the symptom, mass shootings.

How about some stategicals to go with it?

[slapout9]

IMO carl is generally right. It is very hard to use Strategy and stuff against Psychos!

[Bill Moore]

We continue to perpetuate the myth that we can address underlying issues for all things. It is definitely worth addressing as many symptoms as holistically as possible, but the fact remains we don't have a cure for mental illness, stricter gun controls may have a limited impact in select cases (but we'll never know when it works), guards at schools "may" work sometimes, etc. I suspect the government will aggressively pursue improvements and should, but we'll still mourn losses to these type of hideous crimes in the future. The reality is a lot of the so called underlying issues that drive people to act this way are well beyond our control.

[Ken White]

Can't guard against nut cases with ANY Strategy; the NRA missed a chance to be part of the solution sez this Endowment Member, Slap and Bill as always add common sense. This isn't going away, the media does more harm than good and the fact that most the recent crowd of shooters were big time gamers isn't a strategic pivot...

[Bob's World]

I take a unique perspective on strategy (I find how unique this is as I deal with others who blend the word into their job titles with no apparent impact on it actually affecting the jobs they do, or with no particular training, experience or aptitude for strategic thought)

Some thoughts:

1. on "Root Causes" vs. "Energy Sources": Most things have roots of some sort, and many things have common aspects in their roots. But roots are below the surface and therefore impossible to see and hard to assess. Better, perhaps, to think in terms of "energy sources." Do not ask "what are the root causes" as this will spark knee jerk responses on complexity, impossibility, difference of opinion, etc. Instead look for and discuss what energy sources might be at work driving the particular activity one is concerned about.

2. One key way Strategy and Planning are the same: Like planning, it is not having a strategy that is important (most strategies are, IMO, vague, highly biased documents of questionable value; while most plans are overly detailed guidelines for some program of tactics with little connection to truly solving a problem in any kind of enduring way); but rather it is the process of thinking about a problem in holistic and fundamental ways to better understand the energy sources behind it that is important. Too often we skip this step, and either just go with what the boss or some "expert" feels, or we take a doctrinal answer off the shelf and dive straight into a hasty plan followed by a long, frustrating program of engagement.

3. Thinking about questions is often more important than knowledge of answers. I admit, I sometimes state what I currently think in far too certain of terms. That is a flaw I am working on. But I also abandon concepts when necessary and evolve them continuously as this is all part of thinking. Once one "knows" the answer they are almost certainly wrong. The military is a culture that prioritizes knowledge and action far more highly than understanding and thought. Nature of the beast. There is a time when action is critical, but most times we could use a lot less smoke and noise and a little more pause and think.

So, do not presume one can find the "root cause" of excessive gun violence and mass murder such as this recent event. But do resist the urge to knee-jerk action and pause to think about it holistically and in ways that force one to step outside their particular paradigm to do so. Identify some energy sources and considers ways to disconnect from or to turn down those sources. To just put armed guards in every school and to put greater restrictions on guns is the same type of senseless, symptomatic approach we applied to 9/11. Have we learned nothing? We cannot simply cling to things we do not want to change while generating powerful programs to guard against and attack the products of those things. We must evolve. But first we must think.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Bob's World

I take a unique perspective on strategy (I find how unique this is as I deal with others who blend the word into their job titles with no apparent impact on it actually affecting the jobs they do, or with no particular training, experience or aptitude for strategic thought)

This statement comes across as extremely arrogant. All struggle with both strategy and planning for a wide range of reasons. Plans are flawed largely due to our doctrinal process for writing them and the expected formats driven by JOPES. Furthermore commanders are seldom engaged in the planning process, so their impact are often nil or at best minimal. The fact is DOD is more focused on fill in the blank products that add up to a plan (product) they can put on a shelf than a plan they can actually operationalize. I think an argument can be made that those trained to do planning/strategy or actually handicapped by their training.

As for strategy, our nation will continue to struggle with it until we have a functional interagency process; however, you assume incorrectly in my view that you have unique insights that others don't, and you assume some things aren't happening because you're not aware of it. In our system the military doesn't do what you often recommend, but it is being done by others (admittedly often executed poorly and rarely synched, and military activities often don't support strategic objectives, etc.). More people get strategy than you give credit for, but the system doesn't facilitate its execution. If you want to see our nation blossom strategically, then direct your energies at fixing the broken system. Until then good ideas will be nothing more than good ideas.

1. on "Root Causes" vs. "Energy Sources": Most things have roots of some sort, and many things have common aspects in their roots. But roots are below the surface and therefore impossible to see and hard to assess. Better, perhaps, to think in terms of "energy sources." Do not ask "what are the root causes" as this will spark knee jerk responses on complexity, impossibility, difference of opinion, etc. Instead look for and discuss what energy sources might be at work driving the particular activity one is concerned about.

Root causes are generally readily apparent in my opinion, but can't be fixed. Causes are often just that, causes, and are something that can be repaired with our current level of knowledge. I surfaced the energy concept years ago on SWJ, and argued when we put more energy into a system we'll get an equal reaction (unless we apply overwhelming energy to a military problem), which is why small footprints for enduring operations, and short duration for large operations are generally best. "When" the root cause can't be addressed we scope the mission to address the threat and minimize the potential of creating other problems. A strategist addresses the problems that can be solved and is wise enough not to waste national resources on the problems that can be solved.

2. One key way Strategy and Planning are the same: Like planning, it is not having a strategy that is important (most strategies are, IMO, vague, highly biased documents of questionable value; while most plans are overly detailed guidelines for some program of tactics with little connection to truly solving a problem in any kind of enduring way); but rather it is the process of thinking about a problem in holistic and fundamental ways to better understand the energy sources behind it that is important. Too often we skip this step, and either just go with what the boss or some "expert" feels, or we take a doctrinal answer off the shelf and dive straight into a hasty plan followed by a long, frustrating program of engagement.

Select text, right click, hit paste repeatedly, and you effectively captured the history of both our foreign and domestic policies. It just isn't the boss, but often what the media drives the boss to focus on, because the media (gun violence) will describe the problem to the public and the public will want that problem (even if it is defined incorrectly) solved.

3. Thinking about questions is often more important than knowledge of answers. I admit, I sometimes state what I currently think in far too certain of terms. That is a flaw I am working on. But I also abandon concepts when necessary and evolve them continuously as this is all part of thinking. Once one "knows" the answer they are almost certainly wrong. The military is a culture that prioritizes knowledge and action far more highly than understanding and thought. Nature of the beast. There is a time when action is critical, but most times we could use a lot less smoke and noise and a little more pause and think.

So, do not presume one can find the "root cause" of excessive gun violence and mass murder such as this recent event. But do resist the urge to knee-jerk action and pause to think about it holistically and in ways that force one to step outside their particular paradigm to do so. Identify some energy sources and considers ways to disconnect from or to turn down those sources. To just put armed guards in every school and to put greater restrictions on guns is the same type of senseless, symptomatic approach we applied to 9/11. Have we learned nothing? We cannot simply cling to things we do not want to change while generating powerful programs to guard against and attack the products of those things. We must evolve. But first we must think.

Again this comes across as arrogant and misinformed. You are confusing a public statement by the NRA with government strategy. The government TF groups working this now at the national level emphasized the importance of a fresh and holistic look. Once again you are pointing to yourself as the only one who gets this, yet the reality is the vast majority of our government officials get this. They also get the real world limitations that will limit their courses of action. You already demonstrated bias by writting off the potential value of putting an armed guard in schools as a temporary or enduring tactic to help mitigate future attacks, which surely are coming. Very opinionated, but not supported by any facts. All options need to be on the table, as you said above there are times to take action and this may be one of them, on the other hand it may not.

You would be more convincing if you toned down the I'm smartest cat in the world language, and it wouldn't be that hard to do if you actually listened to what others are saying. All of us have the same struggles.

[Dayuhan]

So, do not presume one can find the "root cause" of excessive gun violence and mass murder such as this recent event. But do resist the urge to knee-jerk action and pause to think about it holistically and in ways that force one to step outside their particular paradigm to do so. Identify some energy sources and considers ways to disconnect from or to turn down those sources. To just put armed guards in every school and to put greater restrictions on guns is the same type of senseless, symptomatic approach we applied to 9/11. Have we learned nothing? We cannot simply cling to things we do not want to change while generating powerful programs to guard against and attack the products of those things. We must evolve. But first we must think.

Have you any course of action to suggest?

Lots of people out there thinking, and lots of proposals, but I'm not seeing anything terribly compelling. Given that we're dealing with a tiny number of deeply disturbed individuals, I'm not sure we're going to accomplish much by looking for root causes or energy sources, which are likely to be different in each case.

Better mental health care is desirable certainly, but even mental health professionals admit that they cannot reliably predict who may be involved in these events. My concern when we discuss greater alertness or anticipation on the mental health side is that kids that just happen to be a little strange (there are many of them) may be stigmatized as potential mass murderers, which is going to mnake already difficult lives even harder. Aside from being unfair to those individuals, that could provoke precisely the behavior we seek to avoid.

Those with pre-existing biases against guns and video games will have predictable suggestions, but I personally see few solutions there.

I don't have any good ideas, and I'm not seeing many I think are good. I think it would be great if the identities and histories of those involved could be kept out of the media completely, but realistically I can't see how that is to be done.

[davidbfpo]

Last week I attended a closed academic and practitioner conference on Lone Actor Terrorism; officialdom dislikes the phrase Lone Wolves and amidst the presentations was an excellent one by Professor Mark Hamm, from Indiana State University 'Radicalization Model of Lone Wolf Terrorism: The Prevention of Six Cases'.

I have obtained his Powerpoint, with his consent to use it via here, alas it is 5.4Mb so cannot be uploaded, so if you are interested PM me with an email address.

Link to his university mini-bio:https://www.indstate.edu/cas/ccj/ccj...ff/hamm-mark-s

What I found very interesting were the figures on attacks and that there were several historical attacks, which I'd not heard of - notably a woman stabbing Martin Luther King and a New Yorker bomber who evaded detection for sixteen years whilst he planted thirty-three IEDs. Let alone a Nazi, James Cummings who assembled a "dirty bomb" to set off at Obama's inauguration.