I would like to have an intelligent debate on the argument about having teachers armed in schools. I have been listening to and watching much of the hyperbole on the issue, and once again it appears to me that there is very little actual intelligent thought coming into the discussion. In almost every instance the arguments against arming teachers have been completely nonsensical.
We have a saying in the military that is very pertinent here: hope is not a method. In other words, hoping for a result gets you nowhere. Another great saying is that the enemy has a vote. This means that no matter what you plan, the enemy gets to put their input in via the battlefield. Combine these two statements and you get Murphy’s Law of Combat: no plan survives initial contact.
Why do I bring these up? It seems that the majority of those opposed to arming teachers stand by the blindest of all hopes—the hope that you can avoid a shooter getting into a school by enacting laws. Of course, they fail to recognize that there are already all sorts of laws designed to protect schools. We have laws against murder, bringing guns into schools, even those that prohibit those with criminal or mental health issues from purchasing guns. Yet in the case of the Parkland shooter, the government proved inept at enforcing the laws that would have protected the students. How would more laws help?
Therefore this discussion can only continue if we recognize the fallacy of the create laws debate. You cannot mandate safety through the enacting of laws. Anyone who has even the most basic understanding of security will tell you that there is no such thing as a 100-percent-secure site. You can have a police officer outside of every house in America and there will still be home robberies. In 2005 in Fortaleza, Brazil, a group of bank robbers rented a property posing as real estate moguls next to the Banco Entral. They then dug a tunnel, 256 feet in length, to come up under the vault, breaking into it and stealing approximately 70 million dollars. The point is, bad guys will always find a way inside.
An even better example would be the Washington Post article, “France has strict gun laws. Why didn’t that save Charlie Hebdo victims?” As the Post points out, even with ultra-strict anti-gun laws, the flow of illegal arms into France is increasing, as are the violent extremist attacks.
Prior to engaging in the debate, I would like to discuss the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP). In particular the Course of Action Development and the War Gaming Process. The Army explains this process in Field Manual (FM) 101-5 Staff Organization and Operations in chapter five. This chapter opens up with the following wisdom, “Decision making is knowing if to decide, then when and what to decide. It includes understanding the consequence of decisions.”
What exactly is the purpose in the MDMP? According to the FM it, “is a single, established, and proven analytical process. The MDMP is an adaptation of the Army’s analytical approach to problem solving…The MDMP helps the commander and his staff examine a battlefield situation and reach logical decisions. The process helps them apply thoroughness, clarity, sound judgment, logic, and professional knowledge to reach a decision.” The Army does not have the luxury of engaging in conjecture when it comes to planning actions. At every level the lives of soldiers rest upon the ability of the commander and his staff to come up with plans that accomplish the mission in the most expeditious manner. It is for this reason that the military developed the MDMP and spends considerable resources instructing its leaders on how to properly conduct it.
One of the key portions of this complex process is the Course of Action (COA) development. After the mission is issued, the staff develops COA to accomplish the mission. Just like any other process, there are rules that must be followed. FM 101-5 states that the course of action development must contain five qualities: suitability, feasibility, acceptability, distinguishability, and completeness. To define these:
1. Suitability: Completes the mission within the guidance
2. Feasibility: Organization can accomplish mission
3. Acceptability: Must justify cost of resources, both fiscal and human
4. Distinguishability: Each plan must be unique to itself
5. Completeness: Must be a complete mission statement
Most importantly, when developing the COA, you must analyze the “most likely and including the worst case (most dangerous)” action of the enemy. I reference the above statement in reminding you that the enemy has a vote; this is our acknowledgment of that. I don’t think that anyone will argue that the most dangerous action an active shooter can take is to get inside the school with a gun. So, if we are going to talk about real solutions to school shootings, we must begin the discussion at this level.
Laws, mental health regulations, and even hardening the school exterior are not real solutions, as they disregard the fact that the shooter will enter the facility. They fall under using hope as a planning method, which is simply nonsensical. The measure of success is to protect the maximum number of students and be able to fiscally implement (suitability and feasibility) criteria. Notice that I did not state that success is to protect all the students. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a scenario where this is possible. I understand that this is the reason why people want to put their faith in laws. In their mind, this is the only way to ensure the 100 percent survivability of the children involved. As I have already stated in more than one way, this line of thinking is a break from reality. The truth is if someone is intent on killing others there is little one can do to stop them. If a solution can be found that would meet this expectation I would likely find it hard to argue against.
Given all of this I have come up with the three options I have heard expressed that seem to meet the intent of minimizing the destructive capability of an active shooter.
1. Harden the school interior
2. Ensure every school has armed security
3. Arm the teachers
After the COAs are developed, the next and most important step in the entire process is the War Game process. The FM is very clear on the necessity of this point: “War gaming is the most valuable step during COA analysis and comparison and should be allocated more time than any other step.” Unfortunately, most people typically skip over this part of developing a plan as it tends to be the most difficult. In order to properly conduct the process, each COA is played out sequentially. The initial action causes potential reactions that are analyzed and lead to follow-up actions. Just as in COA development, there are strict rules when war gaming the different options. They are:
1. Remain objective, not allowing personality or their sensing of “what the commander wants” to influence them. They must avoid defending a COA just because they personally developed it.
2. Accurately record advantages and disadvantages of each COA as they become evident.
3. Continually assess feasibility, acceptability, and suitability of the COA. If a COA fails any of these tests during the war game, they must reject it.
4. Avoid drawing premature conclusions and gathering facts to support such conclusions.
5. Avoid comparing one COA with another during the war game. This must wait until the comparison phase.
In addition to being time-consuming, people are often lax to follow through with this process specifically due to the requirement of remaining detached emotionally from the outcome. If you look at those who tout gun control as the answer to school shootings, you can quickly see how they violate the rules of the process. They are not objective in their responses, nor are they willing to see the disadvantages to their plan (1 & 2). They assume that laws will stop active shooters from obtaining weapons without any facts to support this and then assume the risk in loss of student life with their beliefs (4 & 3). Finally, they end almost every argument with attempting to shut down any other ideas such as arming teachers (5). This in no way allows for a thoughtful and strategic plan. In fact, this ensures that a biased plan will be instituted, which will ultimately lead to a loss of life.
This is an extremely simplified and shortened version of the decision-making process that the military uses, but hopefully those who have yet to be exposed to it learned quite a bit about how the military plans. In my next few articles I will discuss each of the three courses of action identified. What are your thoughts thus far?
