posted by jmm99, It is in their own enlightened self-interest to assist in doing so, and also in the interests of their populations. But, as Sheriff Slim says, the mission is "to preserve and encourage a safe community", not to build one.
Good post, but one that I thinks supports a PCE approach. One element of good governance is providing security to its populace, failure to do so is a failure of the government of the worst type. Your argument only addressed one aspect of the government, which is the police. Jone's is arguing for a Whole of Government Approach, so at the town level, we're talking about everything the Mayor can influence, and what is overlapped on top by county, State, and Federal Government.

Sheriff Slim sounds like he lives/works in a relatively safe community, but I would argue the mission statement would change if you were a cop in a city where certain sections of it were controlled by gangs (or insurgents). Law enforcement then has an obligation to build a safe community, failure to do so could result in the people organizing to address the security problem (outside the law), or seeking relief by joining forces with the criminals or insurgents because the government failed them.

You're points on targeting the criminals were correct. This is the apparent weakness in the population centric approach, although Jones did state it allowed TCE when applicable. Of course if it is applicable if you're fighting an insurgency; however, the there are different ways to get after the threat. Using Jones' example of the Civil Rights Movement, the government took away their cause, thus prevented an increase in tension and defused the situation. The government may be able to turn the populace against the insurgent as we did in Al Anbar. Ultimately the government must get the people to support the government without coercion or the government loses. All that said, key enemy subversives must still be neutralized. The difference is now the TCE is a supporting activity, not the main effort, and never a strategy.



There is much to disagree with in Jones' article, but