Brussels Attacks: Governments, Be Careful when Raising Patrols
Within hours of the attacks in Brussels, Belgian soldiers were seen patrolling the streets. This urgent response was a part of the anti-terrorist efforts that were already in place. The Belgian government was on its second-highest terror alert when the attacks occurred, raising its alert to the highest level after the attack. Many other Western countries, including the US, the UK, and France have raised their alert levels as well. But could have the attacks been avoided even if Belgium was on maximum alert? While the answer to this is of course as complex as it is controversial, governments should keep in mind the negative effects as well as the security benefits involved when they raise military patrols.
Patrols are one of the first things raised after a security threat — France and Britain did this right after the Brussels attacks. Ted Cruz also suggested that the US follow suit, in his own special way. But Cruz’s demand to patrol “Muslim neighborhoods” highlights an underlying weakness in heightening patrols as a means of tightening security. While patrols and policing are intended to make people feel safe, they create the opposite effect in areas where the police are associated with violence and corruption. This issue is being exacerbated by increased ethnocentrism worldwide, making the message of increasing patrols a retaliation against minorities instead of protecting the public. So while a rise in patrolling is necessary to make people feel safe, this decision risks further alienating groups that are already at-risk of being radicalized against society.
It needs to be reiterated that governments should raise security efforts, but only as a means to protect everyone living in the country. It is crucial that the heightened security is done with everyone in mind — since security threats do not come from a single source or single group of people.
Most importantly, governments need to focus on defeating ISIS symbolically as well as physically. ISIS has become a symbol. When ISIS claims an attack, it doesn’t mean a decision made by a central headquarters. In effect, the attackers are claiming that they value what ISIS stands for and are attacking ISIS’s enemy. They believe fear divides nations, and they need to be proven wrong.
The purpose of a security force is to deter violence, but a heavy security presence alone does not guarantee security. Any security force will have holes that can be exploited, and an imposing security presence might do moret to incite violence than prevent it.
Originally published at sanuber.wordpress.com on March 23, 2016.
