Comments on: Urban Warfare Mumbai Style

By: Scrit

Scrit — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 03:41:26 +0000

The first line of defense should be any trained citizens in the line of fire to minimize damage to/maximize survival of bystanders/targets — training which should be freely available from local LEOs after a background check determines that the person is unlikely to use that training in a criminal manner. The second line are the LEOs, to contain the situation, and the third are tactical teams designated to cover large areas, seconded from the military, that have first-hand experience in urban warfare, whose job is to neutralize the bad guys.
Of course, that would require that responsible people make decisions, and decision makers treat citizens are responsible individuals, and we can’t have that, even though raiding those same people’s pocket books is just fine.

By: KragCulloden

KragCulloden — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:37:43 +0000

RE: Local SWAT and “We just need to assure that they have the best tactical training possible to operate in this environment.“
I disagree completely. Local law enforcement should NOT be in the business of doing military CT work. One, they don’t have the manpower base to recruit enough proficient bodies for such training. Two, military CT mindset is almost diametrically opposed to good LEO mindset — to expect you can have both from not just one, but dozens of individuals, is unrealistic. Especially ones that have already joined up as policemen (not military).
Three, I find it extremely unhealthy (for the republic) for local law enforcement to be spending money to get (even more) bulked-up in a military fashion — regardless of the intentions, once that money is spent and those expensive assets exist, they get used for all the wrong jobs, and the local civilians are the big losers. It is just NOT a job local law enforcement should be doing.
Military power should stay resident in the Federal military, under Federal control. We already have an absurd number of non-tactical uses of the absurd numbers of SWAT teams in this country…making them even more lethal and more expensive pushes us further down the wrong path.
If the sole choice is beween sufferring a Mumbai attack OR having even more bulked up local SWAT, I honestly would prefer the former. It causes less damage to the republic in the long term than the latter. However, the third choice is best — improving the response time of professional US military responders to such a situation.

By: Bob Heckman

Bob Heckman — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:25:51 +0000

RE: RE: “The Posse Commitatus Act prohibits US military.…
Although I agree there are many precedents of deviations form the oprigiinal law which allow for the use of military forces in traditional law enforcement functions, the immediate response still falls to the local police. An attack “Mumbai” style in which the whole intentin is to kill as many people as possible requires immediate intervention. As in the nVA Tech shootings, the delay by police to wait fortactical support resulted in the death of 32 innocent civilians. We no longer can contain and wait for tactical response, whatever that may be. Although the average police officer would probably be completely overwhelmed tactically by an organized terrorist attack like Mumbai, waiting for the military or even the FBI HRT to arrive will allow for tactical consolidation by the terrorists not to mention the great loss of life by the target ogf the attack. The local SWAT teams have a much better chance of addressing the tactical response. They are already there. We just need to assure that they have the best tactical training possible to operate in this environment. This is where the military can provide to most effective support. Eventially, if the tactical situation persists, Federal law enforcement and/or military tactical response may be necessary. It all boils down to how can we mount an IMMEDIATE tactical response.

By: Madisonian

Madisonian — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:52:38 +0000

The FBI should stand up additional hostage rescue teams somewhere in the midwest and somewhere on the west coast. That would gain some numbers and shorten response times by a few hours. Here in Seattle, we have any number of SWAT teams (Seattle PD, King County, Port of Seattle, WSP, etc) but a Mumbai-style attack seems like an awfully big challenge. Especially if one or both bridges across Lake Washington were blocked… It’s hard to imagine clearing two large hotels in the midst of total chaos without Federal assistance.

By: demophilus

demophilus — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:19:42 +0000

Just a few comments on top of what’s been said.
If the berserkers are already holed up, a lot of this commentary is correct. Clearing a building against entrenched defenders is going to be difficult.
That being said, I wouldn’t sell local police short. In some cities, they’ve been taking down crack houses and meth labs for years. We’re not talking Barney Fife.
More to the point, local cops know the terrain better than a Federal force that might take hours to get on site. Terrain’s important in MOUT, or any other kind of battle. Local cops and security guards know their AO; so do local Feds, like FBI SWAT, or US Marshals SOG.
So a new Federal response force might not be the right tool for the job, if you’re talking a Mumbai-style attack. Maybe the hostage drama afterwards, but by then you’re playing catch-up.
The better course of action would appear to be nailing the attackers out in the open, before they get a chance to hole up. In MOUT and many other spheres, the advantage is with the defender. So, you’re probably better off not giving them that advantage, and using it against them.
There might be better response procedures than waiting for the cavalry. Lockdown and evacuation plans and persistent surveillance would be a good start. Let’s also not forget “observe, orient, decide, act”; whatever your armed or unarmed response might be, your decision loop has got to be swift, and your intel accurate.
As to armed response, patrol rifles are increasingly issued to local police departments, both large and small. Overseas you see see a lot of SMGs or 9mm carbines at checkpoints, in vehicles, or on foot patrol. I’ve seen Israeli cops still carrying M-1 carbines. All of them are still viable weapons against unarmored targets.
So are shotguns. IIRC, after the North Hollywood thing the LAPD rank and file complained about how they weren’t allowed to have slugs for their shotguns. Don’t know if that’s still the case. There’s good reasons for not putting slugs in general issue; they’ll punch through almost anything on a city block. But most of the COTS varieties lose around half their energy inside 100 yards. Some of them tumble or drop, not long after that, especially out of a smoothbore. You could probably design something even safer for cities.
So, all things considered, there’s a lot of ways we could use things we already have to counter Mumbai-style scenarios: lockdown and evac procedures, surveillance and commo, fusion centers, and enhanced TTP for local first responders.
I’m not sure we need to stand up new teams and task forces. I’d vote for working smarter, not harder.

By: dbrocks

dbrocks — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:36:00 +0000

the only way to handle a situation like this is simple, small adaptable units (ie infantry fire team) capable of operating alone or as part of a larger force.…you have to get rid of several principles to urban warfare/mout/room clearing and use two.…SPEED AND VIOLENCE OF ACTION.…team leaders need to recognize that in a situation like this your going to lose people if you do your job right, people get hit and thats all there is to it.…you take your time and you might not lose any guys, but you just cost civilians theirs.…i tell my soldiers real simple, you wanna make an omlette, you gotta crack some eggs.….

By: Mainsail

Mainsail — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:47:59 +0000

I find it strange that nobody has mentioned the obvious

By: KragCulloden

KragCulloden — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 04:15:55 +0000

RE: “The Posse Commitatus Act prohibits US military from doing domestic law enforcement. It would have to be a pretty serious situation.“
That only covers arrest & detainment, not use of force against armed individuals. For examples of this look at numerous War-On-Drugs operations where Marine forces provided the muscle, then Coast Guard types arrested, Miranda’ed, and detained the bad guys. (I’m sure Army and Navy types also did these joint drug operations with the Coast Guard, but I can speak from personal experience about Marine operations with them.)
You would use the same setup for a domestic terrorist situation, except instead of Coast Guard, you have actual LEOs for the arrest and detention phase.

By: citanon

citanon — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 03:59:48 +0000

“I would hope that at best, most US city police forces would be able to set up containment in such a situation. Local SWAT could show up and look impressive for the reporters, but would do nothing relevent. The federal responders would do the heavy lifting, be it FBI or military.
I *hope* that Northcom has some type of standing force to respond to such events in the US — Delta/Seals/don’t care who, just so long as they are professional shooters.“
The Posse Commitatus Act prohibits US military from doing domestic law enforcement. It would have to be a pretty serious situation.
Large city SWAT departments are probably very competent. Look at how LAPD SWAT took out the West Hollywood Shooters.
I agree the large area to cover and search would be a very significant problem.

By: FormerROKA

FormerROKA — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 03:24:56 +0000

Food for thought: did those fleeing or cowering Indian policemen have live rounds? I could easily see them having just blanks in their rifle/magazines. For some people, it may make no sense to give law enforcement people guns w/no live ammo, but in certain countries (dunno if India qualifies as one of these countries) where gun totting criminals are rare, it makes more sense to issue blanks to conscripts for safety reasons.…Usually, when there is a heightened security alert, then live rounds would be issued.