Pat Quinn is simply not very good at being a governor, is he?
Gov. Pat Quinn says he would consider using state resources to help combat Chicago street violence, but only if city officials want the assistance.
Speaking on this week’s mass shooting in the Back of the Yards neighborhood, Quinn was asked whether there have been discussions about sending in the state police or Illinois National Guard to assist Chicago police.
[snip]
Quinn did not specifically veto the idea of deploying Guard members in Chicago. A press aide later told CBS 2 the governor was speaking only about the possibility of using state police to help out.
Look, while sending in the National Guard to police Chicago might be either a good idea or a bad idea, there’s one thing that’s certain: it’s not particularly an uncontroversial idea. The governor’s response should have either been a hearty Dang straight I’m sending in troops to break the current grip of violent anarchy on the streets of Chicago or You want me to enforce civil law with armed soldiers? Don’t you know how that can end? Either way: the right answer may not be obvious, but it’s certain that the right answer is not “I dunno.”
And this is going to be their nominee next year. The mind reels.
Moe Lane
Funny. The last time I heard phantom suggestions of pulling in outside help (instead of simply hiring more cops or paying more overtime) was the last time the cops were getting into contract negotiation season.
And, IIRC, the cops are once again getting into contract negotiation season.
If I were at all cynical . . . but . . . naw . . . .
I may be a simple-minded, straightforward, knuckle-dragging former Marine but even I know that sending in the National Guard for that is not the best idea.
Because obviously the problem is a lack of police and security forces. It has nothing to do with the total failure of progressive ideology.
Heh, Quinn can only get less popular from that decision. It might very well be necessary, but it’s better if a Democrat makes it, and takes the inevitable fallout from such a decision.
Watch this: Martial Law
.
Every time martial law is talked about, I rewatch that video. It’s old, but oddly enough not dated (even with the Egypt reference).
That was fun.
The narrator missed the historical example of martial law being declared in Idaho. (It was limited in scope. Silver miners didn’t want to work for what the federal government was willing to pay them, the government did not take this well.) The Wobblies later assassinated the Territorial Governor who had ordered it.
.
Martial Law is nasty.
That said, the country and population are very large. The military does not have nearly enough personnel to control it by force. (Especially given that most military personnel have no relevant training. And that our servicemen would likely reject implementing harsher Rules of Engagement against their fellow-citizens than they did against foreigners in Iraq and Afghanistan.) Brushing aside all the ethical concerns, it’s a temporary solution to a localized problem. At best.