What are your thoughts on the Army eliminating the MP Corps?

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.

I also see possible recruiting issues too. I was a civilian cop for 6 years and enlisted to do specifically do law enforcement. Then I became a CID Special Agent and really loved the MP Corps. I wouldn't have enlisted if only combat MPs were available.

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.

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

LTC Jorge Cordero - -- In theory, contracted workers OUGHT TO cost less than military personnel because they are only paid for the work and they don't have the additional requirements that take up a lot of military time. Look at it this way: If you need 10 people working to do a job, the contract cost is about 11 people (10 workers plus one to run the contract). But if you need 10 soldiers working to do a job, you need at least 14 soldiers so you can have 10 at the job while the other four are off doing mandatory training and other non-job stuff.

This would work IF the work never varies and if the contracting officer developing the Statement Of Work actually includes ALL the work that will ever be needed. The one thing we can be sure of in the military is that there are always changes and there is always extra work that needs to be done.

MSG Thomas Currie - You're absolutely correct "The Theory" but that's only a theory that never really works. They stay in business (contractors) because they have learned the ins and outs of writing a contract to their benefit. You may only need 10 + 1, but in reality there are all the top managers and CEOs for those companies back in DC (not to mention all the lobbyist) that are also making money from that one contract.

LTC Jorge Cordero - Definitely. The overhead on a contract is actually more than the "bloated" overhead of the government doing the job, but the biggest problem is the Statement of Work because anything that isn't explicitly included in the Statement of Work isn't covered. Take your example of running a Dining Facility. The SOW can't just say "feed the troops" or even "feed the troops three meals each day" the SOW has to spell out how many troops, what times the meals are served, what menus and options are allowed, and hundreds of other details. If anything is left out of the SOW, the contractor doesn't have to do it. If the government wants it done they have to pay SOMEONE to do it, but the contract generally prevents the government from bringing anyone else in, so if something needs to be done the government has to pay the existing contractor. But if it wasn't in the SOW, there isn't an established price for it, so the government has to "negotiate" a price with the contractor, but the contractor holds all the cards so whatever price the contractor says is Take-it-or-Leave-it.

MSG Thomas Currie - Very much aware, of the SOW, a Reserve Maintenance Unit I commanded back in the early 90s was deployed to Kuwait because of the SOW. The company contracted to maintain the equipment use by the military for defense on the Kuwaiti border had "Maintain the equipment to 10/20 standards" in the contract. And as many of us know, if the equipment is basically functioning, that may be considered 10/20. You don't have to do any "A services" on equipment if it starts and can preform it's primary function. The Army found out almost 3 years after the gulf war that the contractor wasn't even changing fluids on equipment, because as long as a rotating unit could get in a Bradly or M1, start it up and drive it out to the border it was considered in operating condition. So when called on it, the company said, sure we can do "A services" but it would require a modification of the contract and BTW it's going to cost this much more. So the Army rotated Reserve Maintenance Units for 29 day AT missions (Overseas AT) to perform A services and a few other minor maintenance issues. Mind you I commanded a DS level maintenance unit that was used to change oil. Great moral for the unit, being overseas, but a lot of miss used talent.