We must realize that to mitigate the loss of life during an active killer incident, there must be an absolute exigency to our tactics and our response.

As I sat in an armed American convoy, speeding through the streets of Kabul earlier this year, we passed an Afghan police checkpoint. 

The U.S. commander in the front of the vehicle turned to me and said: “I hold on pretty tightly to my firearm whether we see a crowd of civilians or Afghan police or the Afghan National Army or whatever.  You never know who’s going to turn on you.”

 It was a shrewd analysis and the officer meant every word.  His opinions were formed after a few tours of duty in Iraq and a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.

His comments came to mind as Britain’s Ministry of Defence announced the deaths of five soldiers at the hands of an Afghan policeman who turned his gun on the allied forces trying to train him.  You could hear the skepticism about this war building on radio morning shows in Britain this morning.

Many quoted from the unsolicited remarks of Kim Howells, the government’s current intelligence and security watchdog but more importantly, the British minister responsible for Afghanistan until just last year.

Howells’ assessment in an editorial published in The Guardian newspaper was unequivocal: Britain should begin pulling out of Afghanistan now.

Howells writes: “Bring home the great majority of our fighting men and women and concentrate on using the money saved to secure our own borders, gather intelligence on terrorist activities inside Britain, expand our intelligence operations abroad, co-operate with foreign intelligence services, and counter the propaganda of those who encourage terrorism.”

His comments could not have been more at odds with his former and current boss, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Embedded in Brown’s statement of condolences to the families of the five killed was a pointed statement often repeated: British soldiers are not just trying to make Afghanistan safer; this war is about keeping Britain safe.

“They fought to make Afghanistan more secure, but above all to make Britain safer from the terrorism and extremism which continues to threaten us from the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Fewer and fewer people seem willing to believe that statement. A handful of polls this year confirm a majority of British citizens want their troops withdrawn from Afghanistan. And now an influential government voice is adding to the chorus.

“Such a shift in focus would have the benefit of exposing far fewer British servicemen and women to the deadly threats of Taliban snipers and roadside bombs, but would also have momentous implications for UK foreign and defence policy. We would need to reinvent ourselves diplomatically and militarily.” wrote Howells.

His analysis is at odds with that of General Stanley McChrystal, the American commander in Afghanistan who Pentagon insiders say is publicly urging U.S. President Barack Obama to beef up the mission with at least 40,000 additional troops.

On British soil to deliver a lecture, General McChrystal last month set out his arguments to a London audience.

 “We need to reverse the current trends and time does matter, waiting does not prolong a favourable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely public support will not last indefinitely but the cruel irony is to succeed we need patience, discipline, resolve and time.”

 He added: “The situation is serious and I chose that word very carefully. I also say that neither success or failure for our endeavour there in support of the Afghan people in the government can be taken for granted.”

But Howells directly refutes those arguments in his editorial.

“I doubt whether the presence, even of another 40,000 American troops – brave and efficient though they are – will guarantee that the Taliban and their allies will no longer be able to terrorize and control significant stretches of countryside, rural communities and key roads.

"Recent attacks in Kabul and other centers suggest that the present balance of territorial control is at best likely to remain – or, more likely, to shift in favor of the Taliban.”

There is a good reason that finding a middle-ground on Afghanistan isn’t that easy: There doesn’t seem to be one.

Tell us what you think. Do you think it’s time to rethink the Afghan strategy and pull troops out?

We must realize that to mitigate the loss of life during an active killer incident, there must be an absolute exigency to our tactics and our response.

Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for dealing with violence must be learned and mastered. Don't wing it on the street; have a trained practiced response to deal with the threats.

For training purposes, is it better to teach recruits and officers to visualize and mentally rehearse the desired outcome or the event? The answer may surprise you.

You can often tell the physical condition of a subject with regard to intoxicants or medical condition.

Can someone else run your gun?

He was charming, funny and above all blunt. General Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. and ISAF Commander in Afghanistan, set out to sell his assessment of the mission to a hardened international audience. In a speech at a London think-tank on Thursday, General McChrystal said the mission was so complicated and the history in Afghanistan so difficult to understand, that no ‘bumper sticker slogan’ was going to solve it.

“You run into the person who raises a finger and say here’s a solution. They can have my job!” said McChrystal.

The American general finds himself in the middle of a raging debate about Afghanistan. McChrystal was categorical: Extra troops may not win the war but not enough troops could lose it. But the Obama administration is treading carefully as NATO allies and even the U.S. President's own democratic colleagues start to doubt the commitment to Afghanistan.

General McChrystal admits the situation in some ways is deteriorating.

“Violence is up and it is not up only because there are more collation forces. It’s up because the insurgency has grown. We need to reverse the current trends and time does matter. Waiting does not prolong a favourable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely. Public support will not last indefinitely.” said McChrystal.

And he was equally as blunt when talking about the history of the NATO mission there.

“Our manner of operating distances us physically and psychologically from the people we seek to protect. You need to connect with people,” says McChrystal adding, “We’ve under resourced our operations, in some areas we’ve underperformed, in some areas we’ve under-coordinated. We’ve struggled with unity of effort, national agreements, chains of command that are complex to say the least.”

What he did not admit so openly is that any more engagement with the Afghan people will inevitably lead to more military and civilian casualties in the short term.

But General McChrystal did begin articulating a new mission statement for Afghanistan. He said winning there doesn’t mean beating the Taliban but making the Afghan people safe and secure.

And he divulged two other things that commanders rarely say publicly: We can’t debate a new strategy forever, three months tops, and reconciliation with the Taliban is inevitable.

It is law enforcement's responsibility to understand that crisis management is far superior to management by crisis.

Suspects either comply based on reason or are taken into control by way of force; you must be good at applying both.