Great article and I think it talks about a lot of fundamental reasons, but not the primary "why". The way most police organizations are setup is already content

Great article and I think it talks about a lot of fundamental reasons, but not the primary "why". The way most police organizations are setup is already contentious with the population, where as the way that the military is setup is contentious with other countries and their militaries rather than the immediate population. That already means police are provided perverse incentives. How do you measure the success of a police department? It's a common issue in all security circles. Considering that most if not all police departments are usually receiving funding at a regional or local level, where the government can't just print money to keep their existence going, you now have an organization that needs to justify it's existence by making arrests, giving out tickets and essentially maintaining the reason for their existence. The military really doesn't have that problem. The strength of the military is usually directly tied to the existence of the established order. It is military's that over throw governments and bring in new ones. The military also has little to no interactions with the population. They are almost entirely focused on foreign populations and enemies. When abu ghraib happened, the military acted swiftly. It was a major PR nightmare for the US. The government needed the population's support for the war. So they cleaned up. And that is really what the major differences are. TLDR; Military -> little interaction with populace, existence tied to government, needs populations support to do War which is major measure of success Police -> funded without unlimited money, needs to justify their existence, direct interaction with populace, naturally in contention with population