Over on my other site, a further installment in the series “Everything I Know, I Learned in MBA School At Great Expense And My God Are You Lot Going To Suffer For It”. In this episode, I discuss what the theory of risk management and process control can tell us about the desirability or otherwise of shooting suspected suicide bombers.
{ 18 comments }
des von bladet 07.26.05 at 5:57 pm
(Singin’)
I shot the terrrriste,
But I did not shoot the refugee.
Stephen M (Ethesis) 07.26.05 at 7:26 pm
Thanks for sharing that essay. I’m looking forward to more and have bookmarked the essay.
jacob 07.26.05 at 9:18 pm
D^2, would you mind posting links to past entries to this series?
Mike D 07.27.05 at 3:43 am
jacob: The other entry in this series is here
Mary 07.27.05 at 4:11 am
There’s one called The D-Squared Digest One Minute MBA – Avoiding Projects Pursued By Morons 101, about knowing in advance that the war would be a cock-up. Given that this one is entitled “Part 2” I suspect that might, unfortunately, be all there is.
Marc Mulholland 07.27.05 at 9:33 am
[I’ve posted this comment over a Dsquared Digest]
The combination of public policing with regular recourse to lethal force is, as you say, problematic. However, replacing it with an emphasis on covert intelligence must also be fraught with danger. The latter is, by its nature, unaccountable. It also has a tendency to slide into malign counter-insurgency techniques. These usually include the running of pseudo-gangs, collusion with double-agents involved in illegality, winking at terrorist activities – up to and including murder – for tactical reasons, and the de facto inclusion of assassination in the state’s domestic repertoire.
Stephens’ militant policy of obliterating brains may be a counter-intuitively liberal response to his long running investigation into the shady world of British intelligence and collusion in Northern Ireland.
Matt 07.27.05 at 9:41 am
There were many things about this awful mistake to make one worry about the sense or even sanity of those making choices. Daniel hits many of them. But some of the statements just must be repeated. The idea, for example, that it wasn’t the police who were responsible for shooting 5 bullets into the head of this poor guy, but rather the terrorists was one. Another was the idea that there was a clear need to “destroy the brains” of terroriests (sort of like zombies, I guess) since shooting at the chest would be bad, since suicide bombers strap bombs to their chests. Except, of course, all of the ones in we know of in England. I guess we should just feel lucky they haven’t started destroying the brains of every darkie they see w/ a sports bag or a plastic jug.
David B 07.27.05 at 1:40 pm
Not that I’m a medical expert, but I thought the reason for shooting repeatedly to ‘destroy the brain’ was, based on Israeli experience, to ensure that the bomber cannot trigger any detonation device. This is additional to the reason for shooting at the head rather than the chest, i.e. that a chest-shot might set off the bomb. If you are going to shoot to kill, you might as well do it properly. What would Matt prefer, ‘shoot to mildly irritate’?
Matt 07.27.05 at 1:47 pm
David,
Most “shoot to kill” orders don’t suggest shooting at the head. The reason is that the head is such a smaller target that if you want to shoot to kill in most cases you shoot at the chest. You’re right that the British police say that they are following the Israeli example here, supposedly becuase of fear of people w/ bombs strapped to them. My point was that this doesn’t actually fit with the experience in England, since none of the actual or failed bombers had bombs strapped to them (they were in bags) so nothing that has happend in the UK supports the “destroy the brain!” imperative. Your last sentence is a bit of silly nonsense that has nothing to do with what I (not to mention Daniel) wrote.
washerdreyer 07.27.05 at 3:18 pm
One also has to take into account a good point that someone, I think John Cole, brought up about dead man switches. If it is an announced policy to shoot anyone who is suspected of being an armed suicide bomber, the bomb may be rigged to go off in the event of them being shot.
Dan Hardie 07.27.05 at 3:52 pm
I have a rather lengthy comment up at Dsquared digest, for those with too many hours on their hands. Shorter Dan:’Shoot to kill’ is not the problem here, since shooting by trained marksmen at close ranges is inherently lethal. The new Met Police policy has two main threads, ‘shoot to the head’, which marginally increases the lethality of what was already a very lethal policy; and ‘shoot on suspicion’ which is a major change, since it massively increases the leeway given to the Police in deciding to open fire.
Also, Marc Mulholland is talking smack, again, in positing a false antithesis between a tactical policy to be applied in a small number of cases, and a long-term strategy of infiltration, and in suggesting with zero supporting evidence that the latter has been ruled out.
dipnut 07.27.05 at 4:01 pm
Most “shoot to kill†orders don’t suggest shooting at the head.
Matt, most “shoot to kill” orders aren’t tailored specifically for suicide bombers. David’s initial assertion, which you chose not to address, is correct: the head-shot is taken so as to prevent the bomber from deliberately detonating his weapon. Incapacitation of the target must be immediate and complete, which cannot be achieved except by disrupting the central nervous system.
dipnut 07.27.05 at 4:21 pm
I should add, I suppose, that it’s possible to disrupt the central nervous system with a torso shot (even if the shot misses the spine), provided the weapon is a medium-power rifle or better. The exact mechanism of incapacitation is controversial, but the fact remains: a .308 in the torso stops the fight.
For obvious reasons, police do not use rifles in the streets. Israeli street patrols use 9mm in those little Uzis.
Matt 07.27.05 at 4:26 pm
Oh Dip,
I didn’t ignore David’s remark. I’d mentioned the point in both my original remark and the response to him. My point both times was that we have to British police saying this, but it doesn’t in fact fit with the situation we’ve seen in England, so it’s not clear that this isn’t a more or less hysterical over-reaction of the sort that leads to dead Brazilians on the metro. I’d then responded to David’s remark that an order that’s not aimed at the head would be a “shot to annoy” order, which is nonsense. The final analysis as to whether shooting people in the head for being a darkie coming out of the wrong house and going to the wrong metro station is a good idea over all is well addressed by Daniel’s original post. It’s far from clear that it is a good idea unless you think those likely to be shot are more or less expendable. (This would explain why it can be done in Israel.)
Dan Hardie 07.27.05 at 4:42 pm
‘…since suicide bombers strap bombs to their chests. Except, of course, all of the ones in we know of in England.’
Given that we have a sample of two waves of UK attacks (or 8, possibly 9, bombers), and given that there is no reason why future UK suicide bombers will not adopt the triggering mechanisms used overseas, has it occurred to you that your reasoning is, to put it politely, not especially robust, or, to put it impolitely, an empty-headed sneer by an ignorant fool?
dipnut 07.27.05 at 4:57 pm
…we have to British police saying this, but it doesn’t in fact fit with the situation we’ve seen in England…
How does it not fit? There are suicide bombers in England. Whether they strap their explosives to their chests, or their backs, or their buttocks, is immaterial. You shoot suicide bombers in the head if you know what’s good for you.
…unless you think those likely to be shot are more or less expendable. (This would explain why it can be done in Israel.)
Mm-kay. Going away now.
luci phyrr 07.27.05 at 10:36 pm
From Dipnut’s link:
A 30-06, or a 308, or a 7.92×57 in the torso stops the fight. The fact that it kicks too hard for comfortable use by the Moor-in-the-street is good news for us. […] I am bemused by the continuous attempt on the part of various commentators to establish “a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.” Somehow I do not see a problem there. When I was in school, there was no difficulty in establishing a link between the Stanford football team, the Stanford band, and the Stanford faculty. They were all “sons of the Stanford red.” All these Moors are card-carrying Moors.
Just thought that funny. Like kicking my dog funny.
agm 07.28.05 at 3:04 am
Mr. von bladet, LOL.
Comments on this entry are closed.