I read a post on one Ibrahim Irbard Facebook page purported to call into question role of the military with respect to the police. For the benefit of hindsight I will tread cautiously to draw Irbard’s attention, his knowledge about the institutions are very much limited in scope and also deficient in roles they are engaged. My dismay rises from a suppose knowledge that he claims to be a “security expert”, speaks on security issues.
The effusions from the post seems to has raised furore and disquiet among the personnel of the two institutions. “NO SOLDIER IS BETTER THAN A POLICE OFFICER -THEY ARE EQUAL PARTNERS IN COMBATING CRIME AND THREATS”, Ibrahim Irbard.
My candid advice to the soldier and the police officer – personnel must be wary about people who don’t know what you stand for. Proceeding, we have to understand an argument or the person making his opinions on issues right.
For any military the starting point is this, having paraphrased a quote from former Secretary of State and US Army GEN Colin Powell: “The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things”.
By convention, the military uses overwhelming force and application of firepower to accomplish this, and takes into captivity enemy forces who survive the onslaught. The military does this in support of the foreign and defense policy of the country, and when not actively killing people and breaking things, it practices killing people and breaking things and waits for lawful orders from the President as Commander in Chief and the Military Chain of Command.
The police on the other hand serve the public by keeping the public peace, they enforce the laws and apprehend criminals and ideally, use the least amount of force necessary to perform these functions.
Little bit of education will help him and others to know the truth about “Avtomatic Kalashnikov 1947”, popularly called “AK 47”. This first effective assault rifle was designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov and it was named after him. It may interest most people that “AK 47” assault rifle have been in use in the Ghana Armed Forces long before it present utilization in the Police Service. AK assault rifles are weapon from Eastern bloc, alongside others which was mostly used by the POGR (President Nkrumah’s Own Guard Regiment). The Police were issued with the “MAG 4” rifles, like the military in the colonial era. Even when “MAG 4” was replaced in the military with the “SLR” (Self Loading Rifles), the “MAG 4” usage continued in the Police Service.
Other weapons like the “Sterling” or the sub-machine gun (SMG), the SLR, the G3 assault rifles, the MP4, etc were released to the “Police” and quasi-security organizations after re-kiting of the military.
Well, his thoughts about who handles “AK 47” well, is seared from his weak and aggregated reasons. In all fairness a sizable number of police are very reckless in the handling of weapons. Most police officers lack the discipline when it comes to the handling with a weapon. Many are “trigger happy” and have been the cause of unwarranted casualties with fatalities which won’t be tolerated with a soldier. There are enough instances that support the opinion, however, that is not what is important here.
The soldier is very much aware that he/she will be held strictly accountable for any negligence of discharge of ammunition he/she discharges. Failure to account will have you face the law. The consequences of not being able to account could be seriously worrying for the soldier. Therefore being able to fire a weapon is not the issue but the best way to handle it is more of importance.
Mr Ibrahim Irbard is totally wrong in his declaration that the military and police are partners in combating crime is not factual. They have rather different roles, and for this reasons rather have different training and equipment. The only time military is employed is when events are found to have overwhelmed the police. Combating of crime and law enforcement is the preserve of the police and not soldiers, he should take note of this and be cautious about it.
We have to appreciate and understand that, the role of the police is to forcibly try to end civilian criminal activity, maintain public order and safety, and keep citizens safe from crime. The role of the military is to prevent the occurrence of hostile invasions from other countries, and to engage in combat operations either overseas or within our borders to support the country’s interests. The most important aspect of the police’s job is to make sure everyone within a given country is obeying the law and take action to make sure people don’t break it. Whereas the military is to stop other countries invading, and/or invade other countries.
It is also factual that both institutions are armed and sometimes have to use deadly force, yet, they are quite different. For instance, the police spend a lot of time looking for evidence of criminal activity and using this to arrest suspects and have them formally charged in court.
The military on the other hand does not care about charging anyone in court- they simply engage the enemy in combat and hopefully defeat them. The police are intended to spend much of their time interacting with civilians who they are suppose to protect, whereas the military is designed to engage with hostile enemy forces. Though they are both armed and occasionally end up in combat situations, however, the military’s disposition is much more heavily inclined and geared towards combat role.
Another noteworthy characteristics or essential element that deserves attention, the police have additional legal powers that are required for their job; they can arrest people and detain them pending criminal charges, they can seize property as evidence, they can enter private property to search for evidence (although this and some other powers may require a warrant to authorize their use). The military does not have these powers.
The military completely and on purpose have no standard law enforcement role, the rationale being that in a civilized and democratic society, a government should never turn its military against its own citizens. Notwithstanding, many countries will use the military to support the police if a situation becomes too dangerous for the police to handle on their own.
A classic instance, the state is using its military forces with the police in the fight against the “illegal mining or galamsay”, because the situation has gone way beyond the capacity of the police to handle. Another instance is the use of the military in other special operation such as the Fulani Herdsmen issue, – “Operation Cow Leg”, because, the police don’t have the resources to handle a situation like that.
I decided to write extensively on the subject Military/Police not as a rebuttal, but as informative piece of work for any one who care to have a depth of insight about the two institutions, about their duties and responsibilities.
The “Police Department” is under Interior Ministry and is a state subject. It looks after the internal law and order like theft, burgulary, traffic management, brawls, disputes, accidents etc. While the “MILITARY” is under Central Government and Defense Ministry with primary focus after the defense and aggression of the country against an enemy country. The military could be deployed only by the head of the state. Its deployment is the preserve and sole prerogative of the “President” and no other person. One important determination we should not lose sight of is that, the Military can takeover the police jobs when police fails but not vice versa.
Ibrahim Irbard goofed by trying to compare “Apples with Oranges”. Vast and profound. Soldiers make poor police, and police make poor soldiers. Soldiers and police are used for entirely separate functions and are trained very differently.
“NO SOLDIER IS BETTER THAN A POLICE OFFICER -THEY ARE EQUAL PARTNERS IN COMBATING CRIME AND THEREATS”, Ibrahim Irbard.
Ibrahim Irbard to extent is right to state that “No Soldier is better than a police officer”. Equally “No police officer is better than a soldier”. Yes, I concur with his reasons because their duties and responsibilities are very different. Their established roles are different and therefore they are never equal partners as Irbard want to project. Though the military has an added responsibility to be employed in Internal Security duties when there is need for it.
His take on the training aspect with the handling of the “AK 47” is without significance. I’m of the view that a debate about who handles and maintains an AK 47 better; a soldier or a police officer is irrelevant. It will be better for the soldier or the police officer to be relevant in their assigned duties and uphold the “oath” sworn and not to engage in frivolity. The most important thing for both soldier and police officer is to make the most of their role relevant in the service and governance of the country.
All over the world military/police skirmishes pops up once a while between the two institutions. This ancient nemesis has lingered on since the beginning of human history. Both sides have been guilty with their actions when dealing with each other. There is no cause to rue over what Irbard want to present, as in all human environment differences are inevitable and dealt with when it does happens.
I’m critically concerned about Ibrahim Irbard posturing, trying to create disquiet among the two sides. Irbard must be cautioned against such unprovoked comparing. He must be avoided because a tendency of unnecessary irritation can arise. The import must rather emphasize and recognize the significance of each institution uniqueness. I have stated emphatically soldiers will make poor police, likewise police officers will make poor soldiers. Anyone who thinks that the two institutions are the same have very little knowledge of what constitutes the military or the police institution. One should never forget that soldiers and police are used for entirely separate functions and are trained very differently.
To reiterate the point, the objective of soldiers is to protect the body politic from enemies of the state, from external threats. They exist to protect the people from invasion and to project force in their interest. They accomplish their intentions with direct and indirect application of force, primarily killing soldiers of an enemy state and destroying its infrastructure.
In the case of the police, the purpose is to provide domestic security to the body politic. They aid and support the people, hunt and capture criminals. They act as a deterrent against crime and a reaction force to it. They function as stewards of the people, rendering aid and comfort in time of need. There could be a situation where police officer can go an entire career without ever using his sidearm in the line of duty, yet, still have performed long and valuable service. A point of interest, we should not lose sight of, a fact that, at least in Ghana, apart from Military Police (MPs) who performs similar jobs within the military, all police officers are “CIVILIANS Police” constituted of the people to aid the people.
When this distinction is lost on us, it inevitably leads to tyranny. The soldier fights the enemies of the state. However, when they are used for domestic policing, the people tend to become the enemies of the state.
In conclusion, “No Soldier is better than a police officer”. Equally “No police officer is better than a soldier” their duties and responsibilities are very different. Their established roles are different and therefore they are never “equal partners” as Irbard want to or intend to create. Even though the military has an added responsibility to be employed in “Internal Security” duties when there is need for it.
The “Police” duties and responsibilities are to enforce local civilian laws: traffic, theft, arson, assault; trespass, etc. Police primarily deal with mis-behaving civilians. But if civilian police arrest Mis-behaving soldiers, those naughty soldiers are quickly transferred to the nearest military police. Military police perform similar duties on military bases.
The soldier or the police officer will function poorly in a role which is not designed for their purpose. I believe as people with a degree of knowledge in security we must always be alert and endeavor to award off people who have very little knowledge about how we operate.
Our collective duty “service to country” is very paramount.
