Posted on Jul 7, 2024
SGT Greg Knytych
9.9K
68
21
14
14
0
I have seen many posts on Facebook in the Oldschool 95B page talking about the Army either eliminating the MP Corps or eliminating Garrison Law Enforcement from the mission.
I've heard this rumor before, even when I was still in 35+ years ago. I do believe base law enforcement duties stateside will become more and more commonly handled by DOD Police allowing more personnel assigned to units to handle the changing and evolving wartime mission. There's been criticism about "civilian" police enforcing the laws on base, but the DOD Police aren't civilian. They work under the same authority and enforce all military regulations and policies as the MPs do. They also have the same responsibility to the UCMJ as any military member. I see no issues here. What do you say?
Avatar feed
Responses: 12
LTC Jason Mackay
14
14
0
Having commanded a Garrison, I can tell you DoD Police do not have the same responsibility to UCMJ as military members. Head on down to your local CPAC and the Union for that area and tell me what you find. There is some pros and cons to realigning the law enforcement mission from Garrison and creating a larger DoD contingent to take it on. The largest argument I can think of is if there is a law enforcement mission in a deployed environment, the MPs need to at least rotate through LE assignments so they can do it down range. Experience in patrol and investigation are essential. Only one way to get it…
(14)
Comment
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
4 mo
I agree 100% with Your View Colonel and having spent 22 years as a military Member in USAF Air/Security Police there is no good substitute for that. We have worked with DOD Police and that's fine but as a supplement NOT a replacement. My Military Police career also led to a career as a Full time civilian Police officer as well which I had the training and experience for. The Military Police background also put Me at the top of the list for any civilian Department I had applied and I had a choice of jobs.
(4)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGM Bill Frazer
11
11
0
The 1st time you get a parcel of POWs, and you have to sit on them because there is no MPs to turn them over to and no POW camps, they will change their tune pretty damn quick!
(11)
Comment
(0)
SGT Greg Knytych
SGT Greg Knytych
4 mo
It is my understanding that the core mission of POWs, traffic control and VIP security is not changing. The main change is in the stateside garrison law enforcement mission and additional cross training for 11B and 19D.
When I was in, 35+ years ago we had that cross training and that became apparent as to how much training there was when I attended the NCO Academy. MPs and Scouts were singled out in weapons and navigation classes.
I'm not opposed to more DOD Police on bases but wonder how that reception will be from other commanders on base. Whatever form the changes are, the critical mission needs to be priority.
(4)
Reply
(0)
1SG Albert Archuleta
1SG Albert Archuleta
6 d
I totally agree with you SGM...Internment and Resettlement Operations: Army Field Manual FM 3-39. 40. There's a HUGE need for this and we need trained Soldiers who know what to do in and what not to do when working with detainees in the theater internment facility (TIF). I was the COG in Iraq at Taji, and that amount of politcal and red tape when working with detainees is ridiculous! Definitely isn’t not the most desirable or sought off job, but it provided great opportunities for HUMINT operations and the amount of intel it provided to the US Forces was instrumental. In all....We still need 31B and 31E MOSs
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P
7
7
0
A few years ago, the AF in it's infinite stupidity...uh, I mean wisdom....thought eliminating the Security Forces AFSC and replacing them with DoD contract police would be a great "cost saving" measure. That proved to be a COLOSSAL failure when it came time for extra base/post patrols, increased security checks at sensitive asset (ie: WSU, critical infrastructure, etc), and sending troops downrange to secure airfields in Afghanistan and Iraq. The union(s) that control the DoD police units basically to the AF to go fornicate themselves as those functions were not part of their contract. Oddly, the 3P0X1 AFSC made a miraculous reemergence.
(7)
Comment
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
MSG Thomas Currie
4 mo
That is a major issue every time any of the military services decides to "save money" by either civilianizing or privatizing military positions -- especially privatizing. Civilianizing makes sense when the position needs (or at least benefits from) reduced turnover. But the idea that the government can save money by privatizing is always a disaster (but we keep doing it anyway).
DoD civilian employees do cost extra for overtime and do job descriptions and union contracts, but most of the employees are veterans are will usually go along with that "and other duties as assigned" crap as long as it isn't ridiculous.
When the government privatizes a job one of the problems is that they are no longer dealing with the employees and the union, now they are dealing with the contractor first and then with the union, and neither really gives a damn about the employees (not even "their" union). The basic idea that the government can hire a contractor who then hires workers who by law are paid at least "the prevailing wage" but somehow this costs less than the government hiring the workers is clearly ridiculous. The only way the contractor makes any money in the basic contract is by paying the workers less than what the government would have paid for that job and qualifications, unless there is a lot of unemployment in the area this means the contractor has to higher less qualified people willing to work for less money. But the contractor knows that their big payday is when anything changes because anything that wasn't explicitly included in the "Statement of Work" is extra and the contractor gets to price that extra work on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
(1)
Reply
(0)
LTC Jorge Cordero
LTC Jorge Cordero
2 mo
Having served over 30 years, I never understood the logic behind "Contracted anything is more cost affective than a service member". How is paying a contractor millions to operate a dining facility more cost affective than a dining facility NCO or Warrant Officer with a good team of enlisted cooks? How is paying DynCorp millions to run a motor pool more cost affective than mechanics you've already trained? How is paying KBR millions , more cost affective than using truck drivers and fuelers that you've already trained? And to top it off we usually have to provide security for these contractors in a combat zone. But then again we contract that as well?
(0)
Reply
(0)
MSgt Security Forces
MSgt (Join to see)
15 d
It may have reemerge but there is no longer any LE training done at the academy. They have lost their national accreditation. SF are now just grunts of the AF.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close