HOMELAND SECURITY LESSONS
Charlottesville didn’t have the right plan or enough boots on the ground, and failed to stop early violence
The hateful and tragic violence surrounding last weekend’s white nationalist marches in Charlottesville, Va., teaches some important lessons to our national, state and local homeland security officials. Those lessons will be increasingly relevant in the months to come.
Many of the neo-Nazi, white supremacist and other “alt-right” groups that marched spout hateful, racist and violent rhetoric and thrive on provocation. It’s not just talk. Although not receiving the media and political attention directed at radical Islamist terror attacks in the USA and Europe, over the past year there has been a notable rise in extreme right violence directed at Muslims and other minorities, including the recent bombing of a mosque in a suburb of Minneapolis.
Indeed, from 2000 to last year, white supremacists carried out 26 domestic attacks, causing 49 deaths. And such demonstrators often come prepared for violence at demonstrations, as do their anarchist counterparts on the left.
TRAINING, INTELLIGENCE
But the reaction of security authorities in Charlottesville revealed deficiencies in the preparation and planning for suppressing large scale politically motivated violent disorder and even rioting. Over the past decade-and-a-half, homeland security officials at all levels of government have devoted substantial resources, training and intelligence collection to prevent and suppress radical Islamist terrorism, including training in responding to active shooters. What we now need to do is to construct a plan to deal with domestic terrorism and violent civil disorder of all types.
First, although authorities prudently attempted to move the demonstration permit from Emancipation Park to a more spacious venue, a federal court rejected the effort, concluding that this was speech-content regulation in violation of the First Amendment. That decision made it harder to separate protesters and counterprotesters, and seriously hampered crowd control.
And the decision was unnecessary. The First Amendment allows regulation of the time, place and manner of speech. Authorizing demonstrations only in areas configured to separate contending factions is a classic example of permissible regulation. Moreover, with advance intelligence that some demonstrators were plan- ning to come armed, there would be a compelling case for dividing these groups.
Also problematic was the apparent failure to deploy police and National Guard in adequate strength to respond with overwhelming force to outbreaks of violence. Noting that some socalled militia groups were wellarmed and in battle dress, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe lamented that “they had better equipment than our state police had.” That should never happen.
A SHOW OF STRENGTH
Authorities need to develop intelligence that warns of possible participation by armed activists. Police and National Guard should be arrayed in numbers and with equipment that demonstrate unequivocal superior strength. Most important, there should training on defusing and, if necessary, suppressing violent eruptions.
A third tragic lesson was the failure to shut down even minor acts of violence before they spun into a full-fledged melee. Virginia Homeland Security Secretary Brian Moran watched Saturday’s demonstrations from a command center. Faced with individual acts of violence, he commented, “I compare it to hockey. Often in hockey there are sporadic fights, and then they separate.”
But street demonstrations are not hockey. While there is an understandable inclination to fear overreacting, the fact is that allowing small incidents of violence invites violence on a larger scale — just as happened here.
I don’t underestimate that delicate balance between maintaining order and preventing unnecessary police escalation. But the reality is that in the current climate, our communities will see more demonstrations, with more angry and violent provocateurs. We need to take this threat to public safety every bit as seriously as the threat from violent jihadists.
To be sure, the intelligence collection approach and the tactical training will be different. But the basics of security remain constant: intelligence about possible threats, adequate response capability at the scene and decisive tactical leadership.
Homeland Security officials at all levels of government need to assimilate the lessons of Charlottesville, and plan and prepare for the wave to come.