ISSN 1062-7421
Vol. 12 No. 3 (March 2002) pp. 151-152.
RESPONSE BY THE AUTHOR AND EDITOR, PETER B. KRASKA, TO PETER J. GALIE, REVIEW
OF: MILITARIZING THE AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. REPLY BY PETER J.
GALIE.
RESPONSE BY THE AUTHOR, PETER B. KRASKA:
Four years of research and thought--and several of the best scholars criminology and military studies has to offer--and
not one positive remark? Such a harsh reaction, in and of itself, raises questions about the objectivity of Galie's
review (LPBR Vol. 12 No. 1 (January 2002) pp. 48-50). More telling, however, is his demonstrated lack of familiarity
with our book's contents. The evidence for this assertion is strong.
By citing a mere seven-word definition of the concept MILITARISM, Galie charges that the book is "superficial"
in defining its organizing concepts MILITARISM and MILITARIZATION. He neglects to inform the reader that I wrote
an entire chapter devoted to developing and updating these concepts--which includes a detailed list of the seven
features of "high-modern militarization and militarism."
Similarly, the reviewer claims that we fail to discuss the history of the police-military blur, even though Colonel
Dunlap=s essay includes a history of the military's involvement in domestic law enforcement.
Finally, he maintains that the book is "long on generalizations and short on data." The book is designed
to be more conceptual than data-oriented. Even so, the authors went to great lengths to include quantitative data,
operational details, and a constant integration of relevant examples.
What could explain the reviewer's oversights? His primary critique of the book--its lack of theoretical focus--points
to a likely answer. (It is worth noting that the purpose of the book was NOT to provide an explanatory model;
instead, its central aim was to document and discuss the trend's scope, nature, and implications). Galie makes
clear his dislike of the critical "tone" of our theoretical musing. It is not until Galie concludes
his review that he gives himself away. He asserts that our book only "flirts with Foucault." He would
be surprised to learn that five of the ten chapters rely at least partially on Foucauldian thinking. The book
at a minimum held hands with Foucault. Considering this fact was lost on the reviewer, his frustration about why
we did not theorize that the trend is merely a forced reaction to
worsening problems is more understandable. It also points to why he likely glossed over much of our work. The
theoretical factors we highlighted, such as bureaucracy-building and late-modern developments, did not coincide
with the reviewer's theoretical preferences.
Previous to September 11th few paid attention to the militarization of the criminal justice system. The post-9/11
era renders its examination unavoidable. I am confident that this book, for most people, would be a thorough,
thought-provoking, and worthwhile start.
Copyright by the author, Peter B. Kraska.
**************************************************************************
Page 152 begins here.
REPLY BY PETER J. GALIE:
Professor Kraska takes issue with my review of his MILITARIZING OF THE AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. One complaint
is that I did not like the book. I was not aware that a reviewer was under any such obligation. In fact I gave
the book what any author has a right to expect. I summarized its major
assumptions, gave the logic of its argument and spelled out the implications. On how well or badly I did that
the response is silent.
I cited a definition of militarism, which I found unsatisfactory. Kraska: "there is an entire chapter developing
and updating [?] these concepts.." Indeed so, and there are numerous definitions of militarism spread throughout
the essays --a veritable cornucopia of definitions and elaborations? I am sorry I choose the unsatisfactory one.
Perhaps in the next edition Kraska will remove it. I must leave it to the readers to decide whether the many
definitions of militarism are illuminating or muddling.
On the second point, I allegedly failed to notice the essay that discussed the history of the "police military
blur." Kraska's initial point was that this blur is a new phenomenon in America. I suggested that there
is a good deal of history suggesting that it is not. If he thinks Colonel Dunlop's essay indicates that it is
not a new phenomenon, then he needs to revise his thesis, or read the essay himself. Dunlop's essays does address
the question in a little over one page of his fourteen-page essay. After conceding that there was extensive involvement
in the civil war he concludes that "military forces have been used to enforce civil law.." but claims
these
were exceptions to the general rule against the regular use of military force. There is no discussion of these
"uses"--not even a list. It will not do call Dunlop's essay "a history of the military's involvement
in domestic law enforcement".
His third point relates to data and theory. I suggested that when data was presented it was often presented tendentiously
and gave an example. There are more. However, Kraska's main point is that the book was designed to be "more
conceptual than data oriented." As to my claim that the book lacks theoretical focus, Kraska says the book's
purpose was "NOT to provide an explanatory model." These responses illustrate why I was critical of
this work. One the one hand it is not data driven but conceptual; on the other it was not explanatory (even though
the authors "held hands with Foucault"). Coming to grips with Kraska is not unlike punching a pillow--punch
it in one place and it pops out in another.
Finally I faulted the book for not addressing an obvious, though not necessarily correct, alternative to their
hypothesis. For that I am "outed" for my "biased theoretical preferences." Mea maxima culpa.
Copyright by the author, Peter J. Galie.
**************************************************************************