We have all seen the video and photos of the violence in Ferguson, Missouri last night. And for the last week or so, we have all heard the calls for calm and the orders for preparation for the announcement of the jury's decision. In fact, last week governor Nixon of Missouri called up the National Guard to be in position in case there was violence once the decision was announced. So here's the big question: where was the National Guard last night?
The answer is that the Guard troops were stationed in St. Louis rather than in Ferguson. The problem, of course, is that the riots were in Ferguson and not St. Louis. So what was the point in the governor activating the troops but then positioning them away from the problem area?
One has to wonder whether or not putting an extra 1000 armed soldiers at strategic locations across Ferguson would have dissuaded some of the rioters from looting and arson. Logically, it should have prevented some major destruction of the Ferguson community. Most of the rioters are going to leave town with a whole bunch of stuff they looted from the stores in Ferguson. The residents of Ferguson, however, who have already lived through this horror for many months will be left with only a wrecked shell of a business community in the center of town. The people who worked in those businesses have been deprived of their jobs. The people who relied on these stores for their daily needs now have to go much farther just to buy food. In short, the residents of Ferguson have taken a major blow to the quality of their lives.
So why were the troops not put in Ferguson? The decision, it seems, was made by governor Nixon. Apparently, Nixon was concerned that the troops might shoot the rioters if threatened. That, of course, leaves us wondering why Nixon would call up the troops only to decide that it would be too dangerous to use them.
The answer is that the Guard troops were stationed in St. Louis rather than in Ferguson. The problem, of course, is that the riots were in Ferguson and not St. Louis. So what was the point in the governor activating the troops but then positioning them away from the problem area?
One has to wonder whether or not putting an extra 1000 armed soldiers at strategic locations across Ferguson would have dissuaded some of the rioters from looting and arson. Logically, it should have prevented some major destruction of the Ferguson community. Most of the rioters are going to leave town with a whole bunch of stuff they looted from the stores in Ferguson. The residents of Ferguson, however, who have already lived through this horror for many months will be left with only a wrecked shell of a business community in the center of town. The people who worked in those businesses have been deprived of their jobs. The people who relied on these stores for their daily needs now have to go much farther just to buy food. In short, the residents of Ferguson have taken a major blow to the quality of their lives.
So why were the troops not put in Ferguson? The decision, it seems, was made by governor Nixon. Apparently, Nixon was concerned that the troops might shoot the rioters if threatened. That, of course, leaves us wondering why Nixon would call up the troops only to decide that it would be too dangerous to use them.
No comments:
Post a Comment