It seems as if the gunman was shot and arrested by local police. Don't the bases do their own security? I guess I just assumed. Perhaps SWAT tactics are in fact better suited to extracting gunmen embedded with "civilians?" Perhaps all the trained and qualified MPs are deployed?

As a side note, one of the things wondered aloud after the Virgina Tech massacre was how can one guy shoot so many pople -- why didn't they, like, resist and disarm him. (Accompanied frequently with unflattering accusations made about the preparedness, manliness, and general sorry state of education and kids these days.)

So, like, well.. do we have that conversation again this time?

wtf? Is our military stretched so thin they can't secure the perimeter at their own domestic forts?

Perry sends Rangers to help secure Fort Hood

AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas Rangers will assist the military Criminal Investigations Division and FBI with the investigation into the Thursday shootings at Fort Hood.

In a statement Thursday from Gov. Rick Perry's office, Perry said the move comes at the request of the Fort Hood commanding general.

The Texas Rangers are an elite investigative force within the Texas Department of Public Safety. They'll join DPS troopers and helicopters in securing the Fort Hood perimeter.

I don't know, it seems to me that at a place like Ft. Hood security would be more focused on keeping someone outside from getting in. I'm not sure how one "secures" a facility where the threat comes from inside.

Especially if the threat from inside is an officer. He had all the markers for "safety." I don't think we can prevent these ahead of time. They're simply unpredictable.

IMHO.

Being one of the largest bases in the US, Ft. Hood comes under the security of the military and local police force which is a good thing considering it was a locl police officer [who also just happened to be a woman] shot the gunman.

I fail to see your point.

SG

Is that I don't have one. This is a common feature of a question.

As I already said: it surprises me that the military has security arrangements with local police. I just assumed they were some special class of jurisdiction property, like an indian reservation or something.

I would assume by now the military has protocol for dealing with inside security issues. Infilitration and unstable soldiers have always been an issue to be dealt with since the beginning of armies.

In particular, I would have thought that the army by now is on heightended awareness about these things, it is only going to get worse. An eight year war with no end in sight, multiple deployments, stop loss, and the conversion of volunteer guard members into professional soldiers, are all red flags for heightened breakdowns.

Since Columbine, most local schools and cops have plans and practices for shooter scenarios. New rules of engagement, lock downs, etc.

As I said above, maybe the SWAT was actualy better prepared for this.

Apparently you assumed wrong. Maybe it has something to do with Homeland security. Seems a lot of things changed with that and of course being at war.

SG

That's a premise. A hypothesis from which to launch an inquiry. aka: ask a question.

Premise: military bases provide thier own security and policing.

Observation: In this case, security was provided by local civilian police.

Questions: Is this common? Has this been going on for a long time? What formal legal arrangements are involved? Was this done deliberately in advance or ad hoc during the event? Do local police receive tax support for this expanded scope of duty? How do the cops and MPs get along? Who is the incident commander, the police or the military? Do they do joint training? Can a cop arrest a soldier on a base without permission from the commander? What security measures are in place to allow police to enter a base while under attack, do they just drive up and show their badges at the gate? What measures are in place to determine friend/foe and reduce friendly fire incidents? What if the attack is actually by a squad of terrorists, is it still a police incident or does it become a military engagement then? What rules of engagement are used?

Point: none.

Well maybe. But my general understanding of bureaucracies and military culture is that the military would not willingly cede its security, investigations, armed self defense, incident command, and perimeter control to civlilians. Maybe I watch too much tv.

Speaking of TV, if you use WWII and 1950's era films as a guide to history, it is the MPs who often come in and provide security in the town, wherein it is the MPs actually pitching in and exercising jurisdictional policing within town boundaries when soldiers are off base.

So the idea of the civilian police coming in and policing on-base sets that on its head.

it seems this guy was (on paper) the person they DID have on the inside for this kind of thing.

Good point. Life is rich in weirdness. Although it makes perfect sense, after seeing so much PTSS and seeing what happens to the families and to these guys when they return, the shrink knew better than anyone that he didn't want to go.

I should clarify that I think these things are very difficult to identify and eliminate in the specific, which is why you need to prevent/respond to them in the general with broad programs - (like having shrink on base) and removing the stigma of admitting that some people in the military don't fit the mythical image.

Bringing it back to schools: There will always been surly kids in high school, and some of them will be mentally ill, and a few of them will go over the line. You will never be able to lock them all up or medicate them all preemptively. So, one positive thing schools have done is create a culture where it is ok to rat out another kid who is going over the line with threats and plans. This leads to some zero tolerance excesses and presumption of guilt that are troubling and must be tweaked, but the cultural change itself is healthy and may well have already prevented some tragedies, or at least gotten help to very troubled kids.

Stupid me, I thought it was your point of view military bases provided their own security.

SG

I don't think Sarvis asked an unreasonable question, why have you taken such offense?

RE: your side not. If a base full of trained combat troops can't stop this kind of rampage, what chance does a classroom full of college kids have?

at bases here in Alaska backed in 2004 or so, to free more personnel for Iraq.

See Friedman's column about the problem generally. I found his concluding remark about "public servants motivated by, and schooled in, the common good and simple patriotism" especially amusing.