Author Topic: "MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles" and "Replace base MP with RCMP"  (Read 213968 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 167,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,143
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Some of us discussed this earlier, but I thought I'd throw it up here for general consumption and thoughts.  There has been some discussion about creating a branch or an MOC that is responsible for static installation security.  This is something that is too important to leave in the hands of "tasked" soldiers who have other roles to perform.  It would be something akin to the RAF Regiment that polices RAF Airfields.

However, it has been pointed out that this would be a drain on scarce PY's.  As well, I'm not sure that the CF, with a unified force structure, needs to create an MOC that is essentially half-trained Infantry soldiers.  Although I'd be the first infantry-type to be glad to offload tedious base security tasks on someone else, I don't think I would want it to be some half-bake group that are basically "Infantry-Lite".  The potential for having this MOC be a "dumping ground" is too much.

My proposal is to give this task to the Military Police, who would take it along with other tasks (including most of their current ones) to be the operational "Force Protection" experts of the CF.  It would entail having them revert to the Provost Corps of old and take installation security as one of their primary tasks.

Going off of memory, I recall that the 4 missions of the Military Police (someone please correct me) in the CF are:
1) PW Handling
2) Maintenance of Discipline
3) Traffic Direction
4) Military Policing

It appears to me our MP's focus too much on the last one, which is a very specialized task and basically has them doing "un-military" things at the expense of combat preparedness and operational capability.  All I remember about the MP's on base was them running the radar gun outside of the base, setting up Roadside checks, etc, etc.  In Bosnia, they seemed to cruise around in marked patrol cars looking to give soldiers huge fines for driving too fast in an Iltis.  To top it off, the Delta between Regular and Reserve MPs is huge because only Regs are classified as Peace Officers.

I would propose that the Canadian Military Police, re-renamed the Canadian Forces Provost Corps, lose the tasking of military policing.  Like France, I think this function should be handed over to the National Police Force.  Like a municipality or a Province, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will be contracted by the Canadian Forces to provide policing to the military (both CCC and QR&O).  They are the experts on policing and receive proper training that allows them to focus on it.

I believe this will offer us a two-fold advantage:
1) Policing is done by those who know how to police.
2) Higher investigative functions (NIS, etc) are handled by the Mounties - trained investigators who also have the advantage of being outside of the system.  They can be seen as being impartial.

With that duty taken care of by specialized pers, the Provost Corps can move back to its traditional operational capabilities.  They will focus on PW handling, discipline of soldiers in rear areas, traffic control and rear area security.  As well, they should be expanded and given the new fourth role of "Instillation Security".  They should, like the RAF Regiment, be trained to secure perimeters, conduct patrols, principals of Force Protections, and train to work with sensors, dogs, equipment, etc that increases their capabilities with regards to defensive awareness.

When a battlegroup deploys overseas, it should take with it a Provost contingent that is capable of providing security to Canadian Forces camps and bases overseas.  If the demand is too much for the numbers of Provost Soldiers and Officers or the AOR has multiple bases that can't be completely staffed by a single contingent, then Reg Force provost cells will be augmented with Reservists (preferably Provost Reserves, but other MOC's can help in the D&S role).  This gives us the extra advantage of keeping more of the "tip of the spear" types available for operations outside of the camp, whether it be patrolling, raids, or combat operations in distant areas.  They can do so knowing that the Camp is secured by people who train to do the "Rear Area Security" task.

Just an idea, thought it might be worth putting to discuss.

Cheers,
Infanteer
« Last Edit: May 07, 2017, 13:36:53 by kratz »
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Sigs Guy

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • -105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 649
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2005, 18:46:07 »
Well, I want to become an Reg Force MP so I guess I'll throw in my 2 cents. I don't believe the military should get rid of its police service, as France has done. I think that perhaps an entirely seperate branch should be created to oversee the three duties that you would like seen done more, or perhaps those duties can be turned over to the Reserve MP's all together. But I think that in the end their may be more problems with having the RCMP do the policework on military bases, then having actaul military personal. Another possibility is that all MP recruits have to start out doing basic field work, after three years of doing that, they can get promoted to doing police work in general for the military.

All in all, I'd say that Military should continue to have its own police service, instead of getting civilians to do that job.
"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. "
"Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?' "

Martin Luther King Jr

Offline Not a Sig Op

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 58,712
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,822
  • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2005, 22:30:29 »
One major problem I see is that if the Military policing role is removed from the military police is that they loose the ability to perform their police functions when needed... in garrison and domestic situations, this isn't an issue (As you said, it's possible to contract  the RCMP within Canada, although I would submit that the RCMP is already over-burdened, but I'll be honest, I'm not that familiar with their capabilities, so I stand to be corrected), however, on deployment, and over-seas, you can't expect the RCMP to deploy paralellel to the military, they're a police force, not an army, and irritating or not, the MPs fufill a vital function of policing on deployment.

Offline BeadWindow(Banned)

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • -75
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 381
  • somewhere on the flotilla
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2005, 22:38:56 »
But I think that in the end their may be more problems with having the RCMP do the policework on military bases, then having actaul military personal.

Serious crime and sudden deaths are already tasked out to the RCMP. The MP's are involved in the investigations as well but they are redundant if you ask me. We have a para-military national Police force that routinely deploys on peace keeping missions- why have the MP's as well?

A trade like Infanteer discussed would be a good idea.
Welcome back.

Offline Tommy

  • If you dont fill out your Claim properly, the Terrorists Win...
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 8,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 890
  • This Space for Rent - Enquire Within
    • iRock
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2005, 02:15:56 »
Im just wondering How many MP's would release though, if they lost their ability to be police officers?

also would the MP's serving in a Garrison Role (Black uniforms and cars with whoope lights) simply transition over to the RCMP? it seems like the military has spent a considerable amount of money training said MP's and it doesnt seem economical to simply take any skills they learned and simply stop using them...

anyways, only my .02 im a mse-op. so my only knowlege of policing is on the civie side of things at school, so please bear with me.
Tommy is retired now so he can say any opinion he darned well pleases so long as it stays within the forum guidelines :D

Offline BeadWindow(Banned)

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • -75
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 381
  • somewhere on the flotilla
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2005, 03:32:23 »
also would the MP's serving in a Garrison Role (Black uniforms and cars with whoope lights) simply transition over to the RCMP?

No. Even if the MP's tell you otherwise- They would all have to go through the hiring process. The RCMP would at least half the personel at the detachments. (basing that on 30 constables for 10000 people and 45 Mp's for 1000 people)The RC's  are the epitome of "more with less"
Welcome back.

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 167,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,143
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2005, 03:38:44 »
although I would submit that the RCMP is already over-burdened

I would assume that if the CF contracted out the RCMP to cover off the Military Policing aspect that the funding would help to create the extra numbers of Officers in the RCMP.

Quote
however, on deployment, and over-seas, you can't expect the RCMP to deploy paralellel to the military, they're a police force, not an army, and irritating or not, the MPs fufill a vital function of policing on deployment.

We had RCMP Officers overseas as part of the UN police monitors (which then transfered to the EU).   Obviously, a MP who requested Military Policing could be expected to deploy.

As for "irritating", this is not a hack on the MP's in the CF - I didn't put this up because I had a bone to pick or anything.   Rather, I thought it was interesting because I got the feeling that Operational "Provost-like" duties of the MP's (who, like the rest of us, are soldiers first) were being sacrificed for the Military Policing role, which could be handled by the RCMP who specializes in this.   This is a feeling I got by reading about what US MP's have been up to in Iraq in the last couple of years as well.

Just an idea for discussion, not a rant or a complaint.

Im just wondering How many MP's would release though, if they lost their ability to be police officers?

If there goal is to be Police Officers and not soldiers, then maybe it is better off?   What would guys with this attitude (of any trade, really) do if they were put into an Iraq-type situation and forced to run convoys, secure the Green Zone, and do patrols?   What I am looking at is enhancing operational capabilites for this part of the CF.   Sitting on a base and manning a radar gun doesn't seem to be very proactive in doing this (not a hack, as this is part of the job, but one that could be handled by "police" and not "soldiers").

I am sure that, if something like this were to occur, the RCMP could transfer over willing members who, with a certain degree of supplementary training, wish to go the Policing route as opposed to the Soldier route.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Not a Sig Op

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 58,712
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,822
  • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2005, 14:45:10 »
As for "irritating", this is not a hack on the MP's in the CF - I didn't put this up because I had a bone to pick or anything.   Rather, I thought it was interesting because I got the feeling that Operational "Provost-like" duties of the MP's (who, like the rest of us, are soldiers first) were being sacrificed for the Military Policing role, which could be handled by the RCMP who specializes in this.   This is a feeling I got by reading about what US MP's have been up to in Iraq in the last couple of years as well.

While I am aware that the RCMP have deployed to peacekeeping missions and continue to do so, I'm not absolutely familiar with it, so I have to ask, were they there to act as police within the peace-keeping contingent, or were they were to train the local police force? And would I be correct in assuming that they certainly weren't there until several rotos had gone through?

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 167,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,143
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2005, 15:48:19 »
No, you are right - I was only highlighting that RCMP members can be deployed out of Canada.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Sigs Guy

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • -105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 649
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2005, 23:00:10 »
How many people would apply to that new branch though, I think that I would prefer to just go Infantry if something along those lines were to be introduced. If I'm not going out on patrol, then I wouldn't really prefer to do that. Plus how many other MP's would change trades or simply quit if something like that were to happen. I'd say that I doubt we'll see it in our lifetime, but it may happen.
"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. "
"Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?' "

Martin Luther King Jr

Offline Tommy

  • If you dont fill out your Claim properly, the Terrorists Win...
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 8,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 890
  • This Space for Rent - Enquire Within
    • iRock
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #10 on: April 08, 2005, 02:19:54 »
Posted By Infanteer
Quote
If there goal is to be Police Officers and not soldiers, then maybe it is better off?  What would guys with this attitude (of any trade, really) do if they were put into an Iraq-type situation and forced to run convoys, secure the Green Zone, and do patrols?  What I am looking at is enhancing operational capabilites for this part of the CF.  Sitting on a base and manning a radar gun doesn't seem to be very proactive in doing this (not a hack, as this is part of the job, but one that could be handled by "police" and not "soldiers").

Infanteer, I do agree with you that if they have that attitude that they should release. and i dont argue with that point. my thought was more about how many mp's might end up releasing and then just applying to civilian police servies? the CF could end up loosing alot of soldiers at that point. the question im wondering is would that really by in the best interest of the CF?

as i see it, yes and no.
Tommy is retired now so he can say any opinion he darned well pleases so long as it stays within the forum guidelines :D

Offline Sigs Guy

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • -105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 649
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #11 on: April 08, 2005, 02:31:53 »
Or else simply reform the way MP's work, while at the same time still giving them the ability to do policework. As far as I've heard many people will say that they are a clerk not a soldier, etc. when serving in the CF. Perhaps getting it drilled in any CF members head that they are soldiers first, trade second should be a priority.
"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. "
"Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?' "

Martin Luther King Jr

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 167,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,143
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2005, 12:11:46 »
I know we have a few good MP's on this site, so I was interested to hear their thoughts.  So far it has been the peanut gallery chatting away (myself included).  :)
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Not a Sig Op

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 58,712
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,822
  • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #13 on: April 09, 2005, 17:07:18 »
Black uniforms and cars with whoope lights)

Out of curiosity (you being the MSE OP) is "whoope light" a technical term? It's a serious question... as I keep hearing it...

Offline Sigs Guy

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • -105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 649
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2005, 17:47:02 »
Isn't it the same with the DND firefighters as well though. I think that perhaps their should be a new branch created such as the provost corps as mentioned. But at the same time the military police should remain doing law enforcement duties on the base.
"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. "
"Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?' "

Martin Luther King Jr

Offline Poppa

  • Member
  • ****
  • 5,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 170
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #15 on: April 11, 2005, 12:39:05 »
OK,
I'll toss my hat into this one. DEFINATLY we should should have a higher focus on our warfighting capabilities. But unfourtunatly this is not the direction we want to. You would have to look to the res Coys to see any real level of trg for this type of task. We are moving more in synch with our US counterparts regarding doctrine and they have no such issues about trg for war.

Look at this
       I can't express to you the pride, awe, and
respect I feel for the soldiers of call sign Raven 42.
On Sunday afternoon, in a very bad section of scrub-land called
Salman Pak, on the southeastern outskirts of Baghdad, 40 to 50
heavily-armed Iraqi insurgents attacked a convoy of 30 civilian tractor trailer trucks
that were moving supplies for the coalition forces, along an Alternate
Supply Route. These tractor trailers, driven by third country nationals
(primarily Turkish), were escorted by 3 armored Hummers from the COSCOM.
When the insurgents attacked, one of the Hummers was in their kill zone and
the three soldiers aboard were immediately wounded, and the platform taken
under heavy machinegun and RPG fire. Along with them, three of the truck
drivers were killed, 6 were wounded in the tractor trailer trucks. The
enemy attacked from a farmer's barren field next to the road, with a tree line
perpendicular to the ASR, two dry irrigation ditches forming a rough
L-shaped trench line, and a house standing off the dirt road.  After three
minutes of sustained fire, a squad of enemy moved forward toward the
disabled and suppressed trucks.  Each of the enemy had hand-cuffs and were
looking to take hostages for ransom or worse, to take those three wounded
US soldiers for more internet beheadings.

        About this time, three armored Hummers that formed the MP Squad
under call sign Raven 42, 617th MP Co, Kentucky National Guard, assigned to
the 503rd MP BN, 18th MP BDE, arrived on the scene like the cavalry.
The squad had been shadowing the convoy from a distance behind the last
vehicle, and when the convoy trucks stopped and became backed up from the
initial attack, the squad sped up, paralleled the convoy up the shoulder of
the road, and moved to the sound of gunfire. They arrived on the scene just
as a squad of about ten enemy had moved forward across the farmer's field
and were about 20 meters from the road. The MP squad opened fire with .50
cal machineguns and Mk19 grenade launchers and drove across the front of
the enemy's kill zone, between the enemy and the trucks, drawing fire off of
the tractor trailers. The MP's crossed the kill zone and then turned up an
access road at a right angle to the ASR and next to the field full of enemy
fighters.The three vehicles, carrying nine MPs and one medic, stopped in a
line on the dirt access road and flanked the enemy positions with plunging
fire from the .50 cal and the SAW machinegun (Squad Automatic Weapon). In
front of them, was a line of seven sedans, with all their doors and trunk
lids open, the getaway cars and the lone two story house off on their left.

         Immediately the middle vehicle was hit by an RPG knocking the
gunner unconscious from his turret and down into the vehicle. The Vehicle
Commander (the TC), the squad's leader, thought the gunner was dead, but
tried to treat him from inside the vehicle.Simultaneously, the rear
vehicle's driver and TC, section leader two, open their doors and dismount
to fight, while their gunner continued firing from his position in the gun
platform on top of the Hummer.

        Immediately, all three fall under heavy return machinegun fire,
wounded. The driver of the middle vehicle saw them fall out the rearview mirror,
dismounts and sprints to get into the third vehicle and take up the SAW on
top the vehicle.

        The Squad's medic dismounts from that third vehicle, and joined by
the first vehicle's driver (CLS trained) who sprinted back to join him,
begins combat life-saving techniques to treat the three wounded MPs.The
gunner on the
floor of the second vehicle is revived by his TC, the squad leader, and he
climbs back into the .50 cal and opens fire. The Squad leader dismounted
with his M4 carbine, and 2 hand grenades, grabbed the section leader out of
the first vehicle who had rendered radio reports of their first contact.
The two of them, squad leader Staff Sergeant and team leader Sergeant with her
M4 and M203 grenade launcher, rush the nearest ditch about 20 meters away
to start clearing the natural trench line. The enemy has gone into the ditches
and is hiding behind several small trees in the back of the lot.  The .50
cal and SAW flanking fire tears apart the ten in the lead trench line.

        Meanwhile, the two treating the three wounded on the ground at the
rear vehicle come under sniper fire from the lone house. Each of them,
remember one is a medic, pull out AT-4 rocket launchers from the HMMWV and
nearly-simultaneously fire the rockets into the house to neutralize the
shooter.  The two sergeants work their way up the trench line, throwing
grenades, firing grenades from the launcher, and firing their M4's. The
sergeant runs low on ammo and runs back to a vehicle to reload. She moves
to her squad leader's vehicle, and because this squad is led so well, she
knows exactly where to reach her arm blindly into a different vehicle to find
ammo-because each vehicle is packed exactly the same, with discipline. As
she turns to move back to the trench line, Gunner in two sees an AIF jump
from behind one of the cars and start firing on the Sergeant. He pulls his
9mm, because the .50 cal is pointed in the other direction, and shoots five
rounds wounding him. The sergeant moves back to the trench line under fire
from the back of the field, with fresh mags, two more grenades, and three
more M203 rounds. The Mk 19 gunner suppresses the rear of the field.  Now,
rejoined with the squad leader, the two sergeants continue clearing the
enemy from the trench line, until they see no more movement. A lone man
with an RPG launcher on his shoulder steps from behind a tree and prepares to
fire on the three Hummers and is killed with a single aimed SAW shot thru
the head by the previously knocked out gunner on platform two, who now has
a SAW out to supplement the .50 cal in the mount. The team leader sergeant,
she claims four killed by aimed M4 shots. The Squad Leader, he threw four
grenades taking out at least two baddies, and attributes one other to her
aimed M203 fire.

        The gunner on platform two, previously knocked out from a hit by
the RPG, has now swung his .50 cal around and, realizing that the line of
vehicles represents a hazard and possible getaway for the bad guys, starts
shooting the .50cal into the engine blocks until his field of fire is
limited.  He realizes that his vehicle is still running despite the RPG
hit, and drops down from his weapon, into the drivers seat and moves the vehicle
forward on two flat tires about 100 meters into a better firing position.
Just then, the vehicle dies, oil spraying everywhere. He remounts his .50
cal and continues shooting the remaining of the seven cars lined up and
ready for a get-away that wasn't to happen.

        The fire dies down about then, and a second squad arrives on the
scene, dismounts and helps the two giving first aid to the wounded at
platform three. Two minutes later three other squads from the 617th arrive, along with the
CO,and the field is secured, consolidation begins.

        Those seven Americans (with the three wounded) killed in total 24
heavily armed enemy, wounded 6 (two later died), and captured one
unwounded, who feigned injury to escape the fight. They seized 22 AK-47s, 6x RPG
launchers w/ 16 rockets, 13x RPK machineguns, 3x PKM machineguns, 40 hand
grenades, 123 fully loaded 30-rd AK magazines, 52 empty mags, and 10 belts
of 2500 rds of PK ammo.

        The three wounded MPs have been evacuated to Landstuhl. One lost a
kidney and will be paralyzed. The other two will most likely recover,
though one will forever have a bullet lodged between second and third ribs below
his heart. No word on the three COSCOM soldiers wounded in the initial
volleys.

        Of the 7 members of Raven 42 who walked away, two are Caucasian
Women, the rest men--one is Mexican-American, the medic is
African-American, and the other two are Caucasian-the great American melting pot. They
believed even before this fight that their NCOs were the best in the Army,
and that they have the best squad in the Army.  The Medic who fired the
AT-4, said he remembered how from the week before when his squad leader
forced him to train on it, though he didn't think as a medic he would ever
use one. He said he chose to use it in that moment to protect the three
wounded on the ground in front of him, once they came under fire from the
building. The day before this mission, they took the new RFI bandoliers
that were recently issued, and experimented with mounting them in their
vehicles.
Once they figured out how, they pre-loaded a second basic load of ammo into
magazines, put them into the bandoliers, and mounted them in their
vehicles---the same exact way in every vehicle-load plans enforced and
checked by leaders! Leadership under fire--once those three leaders (NCOs)
stepped out of their vehicles, the squad was committed to the fight.

        Their only complaints in the AAR were: the lack of stopping power
in the 9mm; the .50 cal incendiary rounds they are issued in lieu of ball ammo
(shortage of ball in the inventory) didn't have the penetrating power
needed to pierce the walls of the building; and that everyone in the squad was not
CLS trained.

         The female E5 Sergeant who
fought thru the trench line will become the anti-Jessica Lynch media poster
child. She and her squad leader deserve every bit of recognition they will
get, and more. They all do.

Do these guys sound like your typical Cops?...No they sound like soldiers and that's exactly what we should be training for.
Law enforcement...OK but lets not forget which master we serve.

Willing to hear any comments.
"The Platoon is for all purposes, the unit for whose perfection we strive. Because a perfect platoon means a perfect battalion and brigade or division and the efficiency of any army corps is to be measured by that of it's platoons." Major General Sir John Monash

Online garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 74,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,465
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2005, 13:43:27 »
OK,
I'll toss my hat into this one. DEFINATLY we should should have a higher focus on our warfighting capabilities. But unfourtunatly this is not the direction we want to. You would have to look to the res Coys to see any real level of trg for this type of task. We are moving more in synch with our US counterparts regarding doctrine and they have no such issues about trg for war....

I'm working on a response to the ideas Infanteer has proposed, not sure if I qualify as one of the "good MPs" on here but I'm definitely not shy about beaking off about the Branch  ;).  I'm swamped IRL right now and needless to say it's taking me awhile to try to get it right but hopefully it will be up shortly. 

In the meantime, Poppa, I'd be interested to see how you feel it is that the Cdn MP doctrine is moving in line with the US doctrine, particularly given the assigned MP BTS and the USOP MP Insert which has been published.  These are definitely not in line with US MP doctrine, or at least my exposure to it.

Also, I don't want to jump to conclusions about what it is you're saying as I'm having a bit of difficulty figuring out exactly what it is you mean by â Å“You would have to look to the res Coys to see any real level of trg for this type of task.â ?  Before I say anything that is based on a false assumption, perhaps you could flesh out what you mean a bit more.

Offline Poppa

  • Member
  • ****
  • 5,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 170
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2005, 14:33:56 »
Sorry,
When I was talking about the Res Coys it was a poorly worded attempt to point out the differences in our trg. As we have no police role ( you and I have talked about this) the only real trg that we did and continue to do is all of the "warfighting".
Are the Pls doing this...probably but with all of the deployments and manning issues I don't know how much they do. Not a slag just the way things are.

As for aligning with the US, I agree the USOP is a good start. Myself and others in the unit have looked at some of our BTS and compared it to some of the tasks that the US MPs are doing up on are the same. Some of this came out of the symposium 2 months ago was it? Nothing hard or fast just rumblings of things maybe to come.

Hope this helps and
BTW about the PM   ;D thanks much
"The Platoon is for all purposes, the unit for whose perfection we strive. Because a perfect platoon means a perfect battalion and brigade or division and the efficiency of any army corps is to be measured by that of it's platoons." Major General Sir John Monash

Offline Tommy

  • If you dont fill out your Claim properly, the Terrorists Win...
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 8,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 890
  • This Space for Rent - Enquire Within
    • iRock
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2005, 15:34:38 »
Out of curiosity (you being the MSE OP) is "whoope light" a technical term? It's a serious question... as I keep hearing it...

heh...

nah. definatly not a technical term. more just slang for any kind of warning or emergency light on a vehicle ie: the Amber Revolving lamps on the Wrecker or MRT, or the Red Emergency lights on any of the Emergency Vehicles in the CF fleet. like i said... its just slang. sadly being an Reserve MSE-Op, I dont usually Drive anything with said "Whoopie Lights" on it..

Anyways, Back onto topic!  :salute:
Tommy is retired now so he can say any opinion he darned well pleases so long as it stays within the forum guidelines :D

Online garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 74,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,465
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2005, 02:22:18 »
Sorry for the delay.   The proposal is obviously simply that, a proposal, which may kill some people's sacred cows so feel free to fire back.

The four traditional MP tasks are:   Mobility Support, Detention Ops, Security Ops and Police Ops so you weren't far off.     C Pro C always had the ability to conduct Police Ops in relation to the military (particularly with 1 Provost Coy which was formed from the RCMP) although it was overshadowed in WWII by Mobility and Detention Ops.   I'm not sure at what point it started but they also had investigators organized similar to the SIB in the RMP to do what is now done by NIS and I believe it was the 50's when a greater emphasis on Base policing was started.  

The Force Protection idea has merit and the idea of a specific unit being formed to do this was tried in the late 90's with the Airfield Security Force (ASF) which anyone on Op KINETIC or other Ops with helicopters during the late 90's will probably remember.   The ASF was based on the system the USAF uses but unfortunately it came off the rails in a rather predictable way, at least to some of us, and imploded.   â Å“Why do I have MPs guarding helicopters?â ? is a quote attributed to the then DCDS upon his arrival at the camp in Kosovo and it illustrates one problem the unit had.   Having said that, the Air Force MP are still very much in the Force Protection business on Ops, witness how long it took for the infantry to be tasked to provide D&S to Mirage, but the way they are doing it is still very much ad hoc, at least for the ground side and I don't believe it is modeled on the USAF system any longer, although I haven't really asked anyone to find out.   The Navy are in the game as well both at home and abroad, with augmentation from the non-MP reserves at bases in Canada, it is really only the Army MP who are not in there protecting installations and assets in the manner I think you have in mind.   It appears the Air Force and Navy CofC want MP doing the task, the Army CofC doesn't seem to think it's an issue.   Should we be?   I think the obvious answer is yes because in my opinion even the Pol Ops role is essentially a Force Protection role, particularly when deployed, although it isn't acknowledged as such.  

So, how to make it work?   My idea is:

First thing would be to â Å“makeâ ? the MP Branch an Army asset which provides services to all three elements.   This is already done with other trades who predominately work in the land environment but whose services all three elements need.  

The next step would be to include all MP in all of the Land development cycles (because this is the best way of developing the Leadership skill set required for true Force Protection Ops while deployed, no matter what the element), including SQ, Mod 6? of the PLQ etc.   Once SQ was completed the member would proceed on his QL3 which emphasized Force Protection (including the topics mentioned by Infanteer plus a few others I can think of), Mobility and Detention Ops.   Once they graduated their QL3 they would immediately be posted to Force Protection Pls/Coys which would be based at the â Å“bigâ ? bases of Esquimalt, Edmonton, Cold Lake, Winnipeg, Trenton, Ottawa, Petawawa, Valcartier, Bagotville and Halifax.  

At these locations their primary task would be the Protection of the high value assets in these locations, including provision of access control, search of vehicles and persons, perimeter patrols etc. and to provide a pool of resources to draw from when an Op was mounted from the element they were supporting.   They would have the secondary task of augmenting non-elemental Force Protection Ops should the need arise.   Ottawa is dispersed enough to require most of their pers full time but they would also form a reserve to fill in any manning shortfalls from the other elements.   These units would actually be Pl(+) in size, possibly up to Coy in the case of Edmonton, Pet and Valcartier due to the requirement to support the Bde, the Garrison, and possibly an Op (domestic or international), at the same time.   Ottawa would be a full up Coy.   Actual equipment would be tailored to the element supported, ie.   Edmonton would be a combination of civy pattern 4x4 and ATVs for Garrison work with G-Wagons, LS and ML's as the primary vehicles for the field, but Air and Navy would not get the field vehicles as they will not need to do the hard field tasks yet also would have the requirement to do vehicle patrols of lengthy perimeters in all terrain.   Weapons would cover the full range of the small arms family up to and including the AGL should it ever be procured.  

Without crunching the numbers too hard, ballpark increase in hard deployable MP positions would be 150-180 all ranks.   This increase in itself would permit a self-sustaining 30 pers Pl deployment force without counting the MP positions which are already deployable (80 in the MP Pls, Bn MP, the pers in guardhouses who are not in non-deployable positions), which could probably mean the total number of deployable MP would be in the rank of 350-400 pers, allowing 70-80 MPs to be deployed on a sustained basis with a much higher surge capability

Once a member has been in the Force Protection Pl/Coy for 3 years (approx 5 years total service) they will be eligible for selection for their QL5s via merit and suitability to learn the Pol Ops skills in competition with their peers.   If they are not selected for their QL5s they will not be offered a re-engagement and will be released or possibly offered the opportunity to try for an OT should they so desire.  

On their QL5s the member will be taught the Police skills that are now covered on the QL3s and on the completion of this course they would then move to a Guardhouse for a period of at least one year after which they would be eligible for a posting to a the guardhouse at their current base, a move to a non-Force Protection unit base and/or offered the opportunity to compete for a posting to any of the specialist units within the Branch.

Bases without a dedicated Force Protection unit would have a â Å“blendedâ ? guard house which would perform both roles with support from the lodger units whereas the Bases with a dedicated Force Protection unit would have a clearly defined separation in their roles, responsibilities and CofC for the guardhouse and Force Protection unit.   In other words, on Army bases the model would be the current MP Pl situation where the Pl belongs to the Bde and the guardhouse belongs to the ASU.   On the Air Force and Navy sides, this may be a bit harder to define but it could be done.   This would make it harder to end up with a â Å“blendedâ ? organization on the bases with a dedicated Force Protection unit and preserve the integrity of the deployable unit and avoiding the tendancy to "stack" the Guardhouse and shuffle the problem children to the Force Protection unit.   Having said that, the Guard House patrols would be the dedicated QRF for the Force Protection unit should an incident occur until additional Force Protection members are brought in, and the Guard House would be the receptor facility for any detainees etc which the Force Protection unit generated in the course of it's duties protecting the base.  

The requirement to have a 2 year diploma for recruitment would be dropped as they time spent in the Force Protection Pl would provide more than enough time for the individual to mature and be evaluated prior to selection for their QL5.   The end result would be a Reg Force MP with maturity and an understanding that Force Protection is the primary task of the MP yet the Pol Ops skill set would be readily available when required at home and overseas.   OT in would be possible with the time requirement between QL3 and QL5 being reduced to one year.

Primary Reserve would concentrate on the Force Protection, Mobility and Detention Ops tasks with their primary role being to augment Reg Force MP in the Force Protection role at home and when deployed on Ops.   This would be reinforced by the realignment of Reserve MP to collocate them with Reg Force Force Protection units to provide 10 Reserve MP Pls totalling approximately 300 pers all told.   This may prove problematic in recruiting in relation to Cold Lake, Petawawa and Bagotville depending on the demographics.   If this were the case, any non-sustainable locations would have their designated Reserve Pl re-located to another suitable large base of the same element where they would support the Guardhouse in its Force Protection Ops.   All other Reserve MP units would disappear.   Although this will be a dissatisfier for those in the Militia who want to get into the Pol Ops role, this will certainly fix their biggest complaint in that they will have an actual role which will be executed when augmenting us at home and abroad as they would have the same skill set as a Reg Force QL3 who deployed.   The Reserve MP would also eventually become the brain trust of Force Protection Ops as it relates to each environment as a Reservist from Winnipeg generally stays there whereas a Reg Force guy will stillbe posted through the various positions.

When deployed the MP would need to be in sufficient numbers to execute the Security Force task as well as have the ability to respond in the Police role.   This would be met by having the MP Pl divided into a Security Sect (or Sections), Pol Ops Section and a small HQ Section with the ability to tailor the size of each of these sections to the mission.   The security section would be manned by a combination of Reg Force MP QL3s and 5s and those from the Primary Reserve.   Leadership of this section would also be joint force with either the MCpl being from the Reg Force or the Sgt being from the Militia or vice versa.   This would provide deployment opportunities for Reserve MCpls and Sgts which do not currently exist as there would be no worry about them supervising Pol Ops activities.   The Pol Ops and HQ Sect would be manned solely by Reg Force QL5 and up to provide for the issues identified in the Dickson Commission report.

NIS would continue to provide the investigative expertise at home and aboard although once employed in NIS members would remain there permanently unless they specifically requested to return to the â Å“normal MPâ ? rotation.   Promotions within NIS would be filled from within to ensure you didn't have a WO with less investigative experience than his subordinates â Å“case managingâ ?.   This will be good and bad, good in that the training and experience will stay where it does the most good, bad because it could lead to even more of a separation within the Branch.

At the end of the day you end up with a Branch which has become focused on the Force Protection role while still being able to provide Police Ops on a professional basis at home and abroad.

A late breaking thought on how to solve some of the issues like: the CofC; retention of the split between the guardhouses and the Force Protection unit; and the ability to easily draw on personnel from all the Force Protection units no matter what element they were supporting, would be to stand up a higher MP Unit, such as a Bn, which would command all units which had the primary focus of Force Protection.   In this instance, the actual Force Protection unit for a base would be OpCon to the base it was supporting.

Offline Poppa

  • Member
  • ****
  • 5,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 170
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2005, 10:10:50 »
Brilliant!

This is something I can get behind and I know a lot of others who think the way I do.

Primary Reserve would concentrate on the Force Protection, Mobility and Detention Ops tasks with their primary role being to augment Reg Force MP in the Force Protection role at home and when deployed on Ops.    This would be reinforced by the realignment of Reserve MP to collocate them with Reg Force Force Protection units to provide 10 Reserve MP Pls totalling approximately 300 pers all told.    This may prove problematic in recruiting in relation to Cold Lake, Petawawa and Bagotville depending on the demographics.    If this were the case, any non-sustainable locations would have their designated Reserve Pl re-located to another suitable large base of the same element where they would support the Guardhouse in its Force Protection Ops.    All other Reserve MP units would disappear.    Although this will be a dissatisfier for those in the Militia who want to get into the Pol Ops role, this will certainly fix their biggest complaint in that they will have an actual role which will be executed when augmenting us at home and abroad as they would have the same skill set as a Reg Force QL3 who deployed.    The Reserve MP would also eventually become the brain trust of Force Protection Ops as it relates to each environment as a Reservist from Winnipeg generally stays there whereas a Reg Force guy will stillbe posted through the various positions.

This sounds a lot like what I've been having debates/arguments/drag down fights with at the acadamy. Where it has been said that training for anything but police roles was digressing and archaic.

Now MP 00161 do you honestly think that after all expenses and effort put into the reorg of the branch that we will head down this road?
Area PM are now considered CO's in relation tp MP assets. I don't know if this affects the CMBGs or not more to follow when I figure out the C2 relationship.
Maybe with a Navy guy being named the new CFPM everything thats been done in the past 10 years or so will be a moot point. Watch and shoot I guess.
"The Platoon is for all purposes, the unit for whose perfection we strive. Because a perfect platoon means a perfect battalion and brigade or division and the efficiency of any army corps is to be measured by that of it's platoons." Major General Sir John Monash

Offline Meridian

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 65
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 998
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2005, 10:39:56 »
I did not read the replies (sorry!) but my one and only comment on the initial post is that it would seem that removing military policing from the current MP MOC and adding in force protection would be the same thing (more or less) as creating a MOC just for force protection.

From a recruiting perspective; MANY people join up as MP"s to get the requisite experience before going off to be a Peace oFficer in a civilian life. How many people will sign up to be force protection? To basically be the guys who get shot at, but never the guys who get to do the shooting?

Realistically... How do you think these guys will be treated, vis-a-vis the "real troops at the sharp(er) end", and what kind of prestige will come from being force protection, if it is already looked at as a "menial task"?


Online garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 74,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,465
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #22 on: April 14, 2005, 14:23:59 »
Poppa:

I have a better chance of winning the lottery than seeing the Branch move this far into the Force Protection game.  There would be considerable inertia against such a move not only from the Reg Force but also from the Reserves for reasons too numerous to mention.  Even if they do decide to stand up another dedicated â Å“deployableâ ? unit, I do not have high hopes for it given the rumours that had been floating about the Pl to be stood up in Kingston not so long ago.

Is the new CFPM going to change things?  Well...quite honestly I would say not at this point.  He definitely isn't going to be able to undo the last 10 years of changes as they are enshrined in formal legislation and case law for the most part.  Nor should he IMHO, he needs to build on them.  Unless we get a chunk of the â Å“5000â ?, the Branch is not going to be in a position to shift enough PYs around to stand up any kind of dedicated Force Protection unit.   I just hope the Kingston Pl doesn't resurface.  Also look at the Snr Officers who are left in the Branch...not too many with divergent thinking from the party line if you know what I mean.

Quite honestly, I'm not sure what the standing up of the MP Coys with control of the Guardhouses is going to do.  This will only affect the Army guardhouses, at least to my knowledge, and the Guardhouses are supposed to be immediately OpCon'd back to the bases.  About the only thing I can see this achieving is making it easier for the APM to put his finger in the force generation pie as Base Commanders will no longer be able to decline tasks to â Å“theirâ ? MPs.  Of course, this takes a step in the direction that the Dickson Commission wanted the Branch to go and it certainly must have â Å“she who shall not be named lest she reappearâ ? grinning from ear to ear as she tried to accomplish this a few times.  Time will tell I guess and it certainly is something to watch.

I'm not 100% sure what the current status of the MP Pls is.  The Pls were supposed to remain with the Bde, as opposed to being transferred to the MP Coys.  The one big change, and I'm shaking my head because we're shooting ourselves in the foot, is that the Bn Sheriffs would belong to the Pl with them being pushed back out to the Bns much like the Medical Branch is doing.  IMHO it would be a HUGE mistake to bring the MP Pls into the newly formed MP Coys.  Not only would the MPs lose their place at the Bde â Å“tableâ ?, the temptation would be too great to shuffle people back and forth between the Guardhouse and Pl willy-nilly.  â Å“Under PS investigation?  Right, off to the Pl with ya!â ? as well as â Å“You're not on Ex so you might as well be working shift...training? Bah, Pol Ops is the priority!â ?  This isn't just speculation either, it happened quite frequently in the past, at least in one of the Pls.

As for fighting with the Academy about these issues, barking up the wrong tree.  Until the CFPM, who is now the MA for the Branch, mandates the Academy to teach these subjects their hands are tied even if they wanted to do it.  Unfortunately, the school is also very â Å“policeâ ? oriented, but for a good reason, so it's not like they would even want to pursue these subjects independently. 

Realistically... How do you think these guys will be treated, vis-a-vis the "real troops at the sharp(er) end", and what kind of prestige will come from being force protection, if it is already looked at as a "menial task"?


We're meatheads already, how can the treatment get any worse? ;)  As for the prestige, make it a task worth doing and people will want to do it.  Unfortunately, you're right, many people seem to think that coming to the Branch will give them some kind of leg up in relation to getting onto a civilian service.  I think I've said this elsewhere, but those guys are the ones who seem to have the hardest time getting hired at a civilian police service as 1) they generally don't do well in the Branch as they are focused on getting out and 2) they generally don't do well in the civilian testing as they are focused on getting out and 3) they seem to have applied to every police service under the sun prior to "settling" on MP and have no hesitation about telling anyone who'll listen that the only reason they became a MP was to gain experience.  My observation is that the MPs who get hired are guys who would have got hired even if they were a plumber at the time they applied to the civilian police.  Until civilian services accept MPs as experienced applicants, although rumours abound about places that do, they really aren't gaining that much of an advantage IMHO.

Offline NinerSix

    is getting the itch to deploy.

  • Has been
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 316,371
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,054
  • Retired!
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2005, 16:08:19 »
From my perspective, your proposal seems like a good idea. Just don't tell Coy that I've said that! But like you said, chances are, it will not happen anyway.

What I always wanted is a chance to have access to the same training as the reg. Being integrated with the reg force unit would minimize the disparities in training. Althought The realities of a reservist would still put a damper on training and exercises, we would have a much better chance to meet and maintain the standards.

I just want to add that I think a much bigger number of res MP's should be considered. Maybe as far as twice as much.

The process is not the mission.

Offline GO!!!

  • Fallen Comrade
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 0
  • Posts: 1,851
  • Often have I regretted my speech, never my silence
Re: MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2005, 18:34:59 »
This has come up a few times in the last few days, and has obviously not been laid to rest (enough) before.

I for one think that we as a military would be better served by the RCMP, for a couple of reasons.

1) The purpose of many of the social engineering programs we are subjected to is to make the CF reflect the Canadian public. The use of the RCMP as opposed to our own in house security unit would definitely alleviate this concern of preferential treatment. This would also free up more MPs for deployments, where they could concentrate on MP duties, like route security and PW handling.

2) The RCMP are internationally recognised for their policing prowess, while the MPs are unable, as a group, to police their tiny bases for anything other than traffic offences and the odd domestic dispute. Should you wish to dispute this, I would point to the high rates of theft of and from vehicles and drug use on bases, which the MPs are unwilling or unable to clean up.

3) By having the RCMP conduct investigations and lay charges in accordance with the Canadian Criminal Code and not the CSD, we would subject our troops to the same justice system that civilians are liable to, and cut down severely the polarised punishments that are handed out by CF officers at their discretion. I'm not saying that we should do away with summary trials or court marshals, only that troops should be subjected to one or the other, not both, and that it should be done properly. (the punishment fitting the crime)

4) The cost of having a set number of RCMP officers would undoubtedly be offset by the cuts that could be made to the MP trg system, and associated operational infrastructure and maintenance costs.

I believe that having our bases policed by the RCMP would have the benefit of excellent policing by an impartial organisation, with cost reductions for the CF to boot.

Any thoughts?
No leader was ever hated for being too hard, but a great many were for attempting to appear that way.