Following a tragic shooting in Poitiers, Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau faces backlash for misrepresenting the violence associated with drug trafficking. Calls for military intervention in crime-ridden neighborhoods have emerged, but the military’s role is primarily supportive and not intended for law enforcement. Military leaders express concerns about deploying troops for civil unrest management, emphasizing that such actions should only be a last resort, aligned with government directives.
The Aftermath of Violence in Poitiers
In the wake of a tragic shooting that claimed the life of a teenager in Poitiers, Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau faces criticism for allegedly misrepresenting a violent incident involving a large crowd. In his efforts to address what he perceives as the ‘Mexicanization’ of France, Retailleau aims to showcase the government’s commitment to combatting drug trafficking. Renaissance deputy Karl Olive has also voiced his concerns regarding the escalating violence and has suggested an experimental measure to send soldiers into neighborhoods heavily affected by drugs, a proposal that has been echoed by various elected officials over time. However, the execution of such an idea proves to be more complex than it appears.
Understanding the Role of the Military
It’s important to clarify that the call for military intervention in areas struggling with violence linked to drug trafficking is not new. Politicians like socialist Samia Ghali have advocated for military presence in Marseille, while others in Nice have sought similar support to tackle drug-related violence.
According to Les Surligneurs, a media outlet that specializes in debunking misinformation, law enforcement agencies are primarily responsible for conducting arrests, searches, and investigations within the country. The military, on the other hand, does not have a standard role in these operations. Although the Constitution allows for a state of siege, which could enable military authorities to assume police powers under specific conditions, it is intended for situations of imminent danger due to foreign war or armed insurrection.
While the military may assist with security operations, like those seen in Operation Sentinel, they require a formal requisition from civil authorities to intervene. Instances of collaboration between the army and gendarmerie, such as in Guyana, do not imply a blanket policy for deploying soldiers in high-risk neighborhoods where drug trafficking is rampant.
To justify military intervention, it must be shown that law enforcement is unable to maintain order on their own, as indicated by the ‘4 i’s’ rule. A directive from November 14, 2017, states that the army can be called upon when civil resources are considered unavailable or insufficient. However, legal experts note that such directives can be easily amended, suggesting that a law might allow for mixed brigades that combine police and military forces in the future.
Concerns Within the Military Ranks
There are significant reservations among military leadership regarding the prospect of deploying soldiers to manage civil unrest. Notably, a claim made by Eric Zemmour about a ‘Ronches operation’ aimed at assigning soldiers to sensitive neighborhoods was dismissed by the military high command as a mere ‘fantasy.’ They emphasized that the armed forces are not designed for managing public order issues, such as crowd control or dispersal of protests, and should only intervene as a last resort, as mandated by government authorities.
The principles outlined in the November 2017 directive were reiterated, clarifying that it does not authorize military intervention in urban areas but rather pertains to specific operations, such as those addressing natural disasters or public health crises.
For any questions or to report misinformation, feel free to reach out to us. Our team is also active on Twitter.