Gringo Malandro, I wasn't trying to compare the situation in Rio as parallel to a gang controlled neighborhood in Philly or Las Vegas, but simply illustrate there are several neighborhoods in the developing and modern world that are controlled by thugs, not by the police. I agree with all your points, except perhaps downplaying the relevance of this article.

Perhaps it is a school of thought versus a principle, but I believe you have to control the populace to defeat an insurgency, so any articles I find on the government attempting to re-establish control I tend to think they're important. During an insurgeny either the police, military or a combination there of may be employed to control the populace, so I think the tactics being employed by the police are relevant (unfortunately as jmm99 points out, as an example to avoid) to both mlitary and police.

jmm99 points out that legitimacy is the main issue, perhaps the center of gravity, and it is clear that the police are not legitimate to the relevant populace in this case, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out over time.

IIRC this method has appeared in the USA, the snag was keeping the assigned officers living in their patrol base.
David please cite a couple of examples when you have tiime. Also how realistic is it to expect a police officer with a family to actually live in a depressed neighborhood, send his kids to the gang infested schools, etc.?

While I agree in principle, I think there is a limit to what we should expect. Perhaps bringing in a national level law enforcement force for 4 to 6 months at a time (without moving their families) might be acceptable? Thoughts?

If you hire locals, then they are vulnerable to having their families threatened. I think this all ties into how we plan to address long term stability issues in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. It may be a different apple, but it is still an apple.