ISSN 1062-7421
Vol. 12 No. 1 (January 2002) pp. 48-50.

MILITARIZING THE AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM by Peter B. Kraska (Editor). Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2001. 175 pp. Cloth $47.50. ISBN 1-55553-476-7. Paper $20.00. ISBN: 1-55553-475-9

Reviewed by Peter J. Galie, Department of Political Science, Canisius College.

MILITARIZING THE AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM is a collection of essays edited by Peter B. Kraska that focus on the "military/criminal justice
blur" and the role militarism plays in this development. The ten essays are divided into three categories: Militarized Crime Control in America; The Military Police Blur; and Militarism Comes Home Punishment Feminism and Popular Culture. Topics explored include, inter alia, the growing involvement of military forces in domestic law enforcement, community policing, the patrol of the Mexican-U. S. border, and feminist militarism and popular culture.

The thesis of the work, largely Kraska's doing, can be laid out in a series of propositions or assumptions.

I: Traditionally the military handles threats to our nation from outside, while the criminal justice system deals with crime and internal disorder. There is some well-known history to address concerning this point, viz., the use of the military at various points in our past against domestic groups. Kraska and the other essayists do not address this history. Perhaps they would argue that they were isolated instances, but it would have been useful to read the argument. I don't recall anyone, except segregationists, arguing that the use of the military to see that schools would be integrated was an example of the military finding a "socially useful" function while blurring the distinction between the military and criminal justice system, thus increasing national power.

II: Historically, a close alliance between the military and domestic law enforcement has been associated with repressive government.

III: The United States is in the middle of a "momentous historical change" that few people, Kraska, et. al. excepted, have noticed, a change that involves blurring this separation and violating a "long standing tenet of democratic governance" (p. 3).

IV: This blurring is aided and abetted by an ideology of militarism defined in one of the essays as "the prevalence of war-like values in society" (p. 123). Militarism is the second topic on which most of the essayists focus. However, the slippery nature of the concept makes it difficult to come to grips with. The logic seems circular: "from a militaristic perspective the world is a dangerous place with few opportunities for cooperation" (p. 126). Does this mean that from a non-militaristic perspective the world is not a dangerous place, or more reasonably, that the world is a dangerous place but there are opportunities for cooperating to overcome the dangers. How does one parse such language? Is militarism a new phenomenon

Page 49 begins here

or has it been part of American life from the beginning? If it is the latter, is this militarism increasing or decreasing? One of the essayists speaks of stemming "the tide of growing militarization of U. S. society" (p. 136), but the kind of evidence that would sustain that claim is simply not forthcoming. And what counts as evidence for either assertion? The book is long on generalizations and short on data, and what data is presented is sometimes presented in a selective manner. For example, it is true that the federal government spends four times as much on the military as on education, but it is also true that the military is a federal function and education has
been, and still is, largely financed by local and state money, which, if included, would make the statement inaccurate or, at best, misleading. If militarism is a form of hyper masculinity with an emphasis on violence, sexism, racism, classism, and ageism what are the implications for such militarism of the undeniably expanding role of women in all aspects of American society. That question is not addressed in Susan Caufield's essay "Militarism Feminism and Criminal Justice.".

V: This blurring has created a new "criminal justice military complex" (CJMC) that arose to fill the vacuum left by the end of communism, "post cold war modernism", as Kraska calls it. The military, needs a new "narrative" to justify their existence, constructed, with the help of politicians looking for a more "socially useful" role for the military, a new enemy. Kraska claims initially the military were "forced" into the role (p. 4) but, after early resistance, embraced it (p. 21). This new enemy was the war on drugs. The time frame is a problem here as the war on drugs emerged in the early eighties, whereas the Soviet Union did not collapse until the end of the decade. Perhaps the powers that be anticipated the collapse and, knowing the military would need a new raison d'^tre, got an early start.
Kraska argues that this blurring is not the result of real world problems: "[W]hat we have are not problems in search of a solution but solutions in search of problems" (p. 22), or, "New problems can be sought for existing technologies" (p. 59). The book was published before September 11th, an event which certainly has accelerated the integration and cooperation between the criminal justice system and the military. It may be possible to argue that such integration will not be effective or that such integration poses dangers, both plausible arguments, but it is hard for this reviewer to imagine Kraska arguing that the integration spawned by the events of September 11th was a solution in search of a problem.

This event points to the central weakness of the book. Instead of examining alternative explanations for the increasing integration of the two institutions, e.g., an increasingly integrated world with concomitant world wide problems and disorders, or the failure of traditional institutions to solve problems and the accompanying frustration that induces a resort to the military, Kraska and the essayists doggedly pursue the view that these developments are the result of a military-industrial technology in search of validation and legitimacy.

VI: This erosion has led to (a) repressive government in America; (b) the early stages of a repressive government in America; or (c) the establishment of the groundwork for repressive government. Kraska and his cohort are maddeningly imprecise and elusive about which of the above they believe to be the case. Let's look at some examples of this imprecision. . Kraska writes, "although only the most

Page 50 begins here

ideologically extreme observers are warning of a fully integrated police/military security forces (Harold Lasswell's "Garrison state"), the military and criminal justice overlap is a legitimate and important sociopolitical trend" (p. 3). The passage seems to rule out answer (a), but the thrust of the essays leads one to the conclusion that we are on the eve of repression. The essays are sprinkled with hints of the ominous consequences of this development. Alongside these jeremiads are statements that seem to offer hope. We do not embrace a "technologically determinist futurology" (p. 59). The introduction of such "communications technologies
into policing is not a harbinger of a totally controlled society". Why not? Because "the watched are aware they are being watched" and this introduces "a dynamic interplay between watchers and watched. people search out spaces (physical and informational) beyond official scrutiny and attempt[ing] creatively to turn the gaze back upon the official watchers" (p. 60). Had a "grand scheme" of a "criminal justice -military complex" been uncovered, or only a "hodgepodge of highly decentralized and loosely connected processes. from the grassroots level to the Pentagon and Department of Justice"? The designation of a grand scheme in the form of the CJMC, Kraska writes, "is only our after the fact attempt to develop the big picture." It turns but there is no grand scheme conspiracy against the public interest. Rather, "bureaucratic momentum, political maneuvering, corporate interests and individual dynasty builders" (p. 162). This statement would likely find
acceptance by most students of public policy and the military; it is, however, out of touch with the tone and substance of the essays, suggesting a schizoid character to the work. On the one hand the collection provides an examination of the political and economic processes that have led to the blurring of the line between military technology and the functions of domestic law enforcement and the real dangers that such integration might pose, and on the other, the essays are replete with ominous, if allusive, warnings of hidden dangers, the growing pervasiveness of an ideology of militarism and "historical shifts in the nature of the state" with a nod
towards Michel Foucault's notions of power, domination and "technologies of the self". The flirtation with Foucault certainly has something to do with the closing words of the concluding essay. The story told in this book will not provide much hope for those seeking solutions. Perhaps our analysis will lead others to explore alternative futures" (p. 162). This reviewer would add "and seek alternative explanations".

**************************************************************************

Copyright 2002 by the author, Peter J. Galie.