America’s police are under assault. There have been a litany of police shootings targeting Afro-Americans, largely men. Indeed, last year’s killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis sparked a widespread civil rights movement under the Black Lives Matter banner. This week, Derek Chauvin, the police officer who knelt on Floyd’s neck was convicted of murder. Against this backdrop, the ubiquitous calls for “defunding”, “reforming” and “demilitarising” the police have become deafening. Does the aforementioned reflect systemic and institutional flaws and failures inherent to policing in the US? If so, what does it mean for the 18,000 police departments nationwide that are home to 700,000 full-time officers? Or are other factors at play? Whatever the case may be, American police forces have much to learn from the US military in three key areas: training, education an establishing rules of engagement. In terms of global rankings, training periods for American law enforcement agents remain quite low; just 20-27 weeks (followed by a probation period lasting several months) as compared to the 2.5-4 years that is standard practice in Germany. A careful and thoughtful analysis of police training is therefore essential. The military has taken measures towards this end. There have been in-house probes and revisions of how service personnel are trained. Indeed, the Code of Conduct was developed and made an intrinsic part of military culture following the Korean War (1950-53) when a surprising number of American POWs (prisoners of war) collaborated with the enemy. Elsewhere, the early years of the Vietnam War (1961-74) saw North Vietnamese aviators, flying obsolete jets fighters, shoot down an unprecedented number of US Navy pilots. This gave birth to the famous Topgun US Navy Fighter Weapons School; a graduate-level fighter pilot training programme. Thereby reversing the US military’s fortunes to about 15 to 1 in its favour. Long-term training and education programmes must be mandatory to ensure police forces keep pace with changing trends, technology, public sentiment and the law itself While Topgun may not be directly applied to the police, training must, nevertheless, be aligned with current social, cultural and law enforcement norms while also taking into account public sentiment. Standardisation is also crucial. One possibility is to perhaps introduce a federal law to codify training requirements, with special focus on rigorous and ongoing preparation to better handle high-stress environments and conflict. Frequent war games and training exercises must also not be overlooked. Rules of Engagement remain central to military operations. Indeed, even at the time of the Vietnam War, committing these to memory was mandatory. Though this was insufficient to prevent atrocities such as My Lai, where the US military massacred unarmed civilians. Nevertheless, in this century’s American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq , the rules of engagement protect and guide US forces so that excessive caution will not end with a service person being carried by six good men and women to a final resting place. Or so that excessive aggression will not lead to court martial and judgement by 12 peers. Clearly states, cities and local police forces need flexibility in setting the rules of engagement, particularly, the use of deadly force. There is also urgent need for a national clearing-house to oversee and coordinate rules of engagement as well as ensuring compliance with the law at the national level. Furthermore, rules of engagement must be coordinated with the public sector and the many civilian groups and institutions with direct interests in policing, while educating Americans on these vital matters. Finally, long-term training and education programmes must be mandatory to ensure police forces keep pace with changing trends, technology, public sentiment and the law itself. Policing today must go beyond law enforcement. Public safety and security rank as equal or even higher priorities. Lessons from how the military carries out its duties in high-threat conditions, in which the enemy wears no uniform often remains indistinguishable from ordinary civilian populations, remain extremely relevant. As military personnel have taken on more technically challenging responsibilities — from cyber and psychological operations to humanitarian missions and even overseeing the administering of villages and population centres — a similar transition for police is self-evident. This does not mean a militarised police. Though the presence of armed drug gang have led to such trends in the past. Of course, a police SWAT team in full tactical gear is difficult to distinguish from SEAL Team Six or DELTA Force. But the training, rules of engagement and other lessons from the military can be applied without turning police forces into combat soldiers and marines. Given the political ramifications of the use of force by the police, whether proportionate, justified or not — all of which is magnified by social media and the constant presence of mobile phone cameras — the time for a fundamental review of police training is long overdue. The same goes for the rules determining the nuts-and-bolts of policing; including guidance when officers find themselves in harm’s way or become engaged in potentially volatile situations. The penalties for deferring or ducking this responsibility are too great to be delayed for even a single minute more. Dr Harlan Ullman is Senior Advisor at Washington, DC’s Atlantic Council. His latest book, The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD: How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Threat to a Divided Nation and the World at Large due out late this year describes the 1923 Fund in greater detail. He tweets @harlankullman