Military Police roles/org: now vs. C Prov Corps days (split thread)

[jollyjacktar]

I agree that a Royal Canadian Logistic Corps is more likely than a return to RCOC and RCASC but I think RCEME, the finance and admin clerks and the MPs* should be brought into that mix/cap badge, too.

_____
* The really important requirements for MPs in battle are: traffic control, mostly in the read area, and POW handling - both are partof the Big L Logistics realm. I know some MPs will disagree; that's OK, they're wrong. If we have a real war again we can have RCMP units again when we need real, professional police officers in military uniforms.

Although I am no longer in the trade, and therefore don't have a current dog in the fight so to speak, I will take some umbrage at the highlighted text.  The MP of today are just as real, and professional as their civilian counterparts which is reflected in their acceptance at the same level as other municipal police departments in transferring to for example the RCMP.  I won't disagree at the importance of manning TCP's, POW collection points and cages as part of the big picture but that's not all there is to it.

- mod edit to clarify title a bit -

 

[Tibbson]

* The really important requirements for MPs in battle are: traffic control, mostly in the read area, and POW handling - both are partof the Big L Logistics realm. I know some MPs will disagree; that's OK, they're wrong. If we have a real war again we can have RCMP units again when we need real, professional police officers in military uniforms.

Actually you are the one that is very wrong.  The idea that MPs do traffic control in the field went out in the late 80s.  POW/Detainee handling, sure but MPs bring much more to the table then I'm sure you will ever admit.  During our time in Afghanistan we had teams of MPs embedded with the Battle Groups and out in the FOBs on patrol with the infantry, both on foot and mounted. It was that way during my roto in 07 and it was something that had happened long before my tour.  I won't try to change your mind on the facts that you won't accept because you have already clearly stated you are not open to any discussion on the matter.  I'd just respectfully recommend that you educate yourself.

 

[Good2Golf]

I am certain the Mr. Campbell did not mention 'traffic control' with any negative connotation.  It is not a negative thing, nor a menial task.  You should not take offence, such as you have.

Perhaps you could help us educate ourselves -- who then, for instance in the case of a formation-sized deliberate crossing operation, would conduct the traffic control to ensure that the bridgehead force, force in place, and the breakout force were properly coordinated, route-wise?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Armoured recce does TCPs as part of their RAS taskings, I don't know if that fits your criteria though. However, we don't sign routes. That was the job of the Field MPs with their jeeps and doghouse trailers. No idea who does that now.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I smell TANGENT

 

[George Wallace]

Regimental Police can sign routes. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

During our time in Afghanistan we had teams of MPs embedded with the Battle Groups and out in the FOBs on patrol with the infantry, both on foot and mounted.

The ones I saw 'attached' to Battle Groups, investigated traffic accidents, etc. Essentially, the same job Base MPs do at home. What other job(s) did they do in that capacity?

The ones going on patrol with the infantry were doing what? Acting as MPs or filling a rifleman's spot. If they were MP tasked, they would not be doing a section job as it would take away from the overall effectiveness and manpower of the section. If they were filling a rifleman's role, they weren't MPs, they were riflemen.

Or have I got it wrong. Just looking for clarification.

 

[Tibbson]

I didn't take any negative connotation re conducting traffic control, I've done it before and where required I'd do it again but it is certainly not the driving force for the existence of MPs in the modern battle space.  Things like route signing and traffic control are tasks that can be conducted by anyone and in fact it's not been taught at CFSIS/CFMPA for many years.  When called upon to conduct traffic control and route signing MPs are just as capable as any other soldier which is good because with the full scope of tasks MPs are called upon to perform there are often not enough MPs available to dedicate time and efforts to signing or traffic control. 

I don't have full access to many of the doctrine documents from home but a review of the relevent article within this document http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/D12-9-3-4E.pdf will give a better overview of the full scope of MPs in the field in this day and age.  Yes, traffic control is in there but its a very small part of our overall roll.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Regimental Police can sign routes.

Though it might have changed, when I was an RP, our Supervisor was an MP Sgt attached to the unit.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

RP's were supervised by MPs but I think RPs have gone the way of the dodo

 

[jollyjacktar]

Sorry G2G, I'll stand more with SL as well in that I believe ER is mistaken in his beliefs, however well meant. 

The vision that ER is proposing is outdated and would be more in line with what he was familiar with when he was current and there was a Provost Corps.  Their training is in line with CivPOL standards and as I said, there is more, much more to what is done today vs a 1960's model.  You are a product of your era, mine was late 80's to 90's.  Things have changed very much since I left the business in 99.  They're no longer the knuckle draggers that "might" have been more the case when we needed to have RCMP members flesh out the trade. 

 

[George Wallace]

Though it might have changed, when I was an RP, our Supervisor was an MP Sgt attached to the unit.

Yes, with perhaps a MP Cpl, and a bunch of Crewmen.  They are under comd of the Reg't not the MP Platoon.

 

[Tibbson]

The ones I saw 'attached' to Battle Groups, investigated traffic accidents, etc. Essentially, the same job Base MPs do at home. What other job(s) did they do in that capacity?

The ones going on patrol with the infantry were doing what? Acting as MPs or filling a rifleman's spot. If they were MP tasked, they would not be doing a section job as it would take away from the overall effectiveness and manpower of the section. If they were filling a rifleman's role, they weren't MPs, they were riflemen.

Or have I got it wrong. Just looking for clarification.

At times they were acting as riflemen, as any soldier would in that situation.  We all know that every CAF members job, regardless of their trade affiliation, boils down to being a soldier first.  At other times though, many times, they were taking initial possession and processing of detainees, processing and gathering information and evidence at IED sites, providing advice and direction on detainee handling, gathering sworn statements from witnesses and/or victims of incidents in the field (of all types).  What many fail to realise is that every death in the field was processed and treated as if it was a crime so the gathering and preservation of evidence was very important. 

They also spend quite some time working with, mentoring and overseeing various elements of the ANP both in the field and at their various police posts or sub stations. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Yes, with perhaps a MP Cpl, and a bunch of Crewmen.  They are under comd of the Reg't not the MP Platoon.

Which is why I said "MP Sgt attached to the unit", and yes, the rest of us were crewmen

 

[McG]

In talking about all the tacticool stuff an mP might do if we go back to Afghanistan, I noticed this question was ignored?

Perhaps you could help us educate ourselves -- who then, for instance in the case of a formation-sized deliberate crossing operation, would conduct the traffic control to ensure that the bridgehead force, force in place, and the breakout force were properly coordinated, route-wise?

What is the doctrinal answer?  It is not "anyone can do it" and RPs (if they existed still) would not have the scope to undertake such a task at the formation level.

 

[Wolf1412]

The ones I saw 'attached' to Battle Groups, investigated traffic accidents, etc. Essentially, the same job Base MPs do at home. What other job(s) did they do in that capacity?

The ones going on patrol with the infantry were doing what? Acting as MPs or filling a rifleman's spot. If they were MP tasked, they would not be doing a section job as it would take away from the overall effectiveness and manpower of the section. If they were filling a rifleman's role, they weren't MPs, they were riflemen.

Or have I got it wrong. Just looking for clarification.

Not much for posting on the site but do visit for information as currently OutCan. One thing I have noticed RG is your continued fight against anything MP. So a little education regarding MP task in Afghanistan outside of the KAF policing and the others already mentioned.

Convoy Ops and Force Protection. Personally conducted 144 successful convoys  out of the PRT on ROTO 3. This included detainee pick up and transfers, escort duties, QRF task (yes at time an MP was QRF Commander, Accident and IED response and cordons, ANP/AUP Liaison and training (all AUP post, check points and ACPs in and around Kandahar, Panjwa and Zhari). These task complete, conducted by MP Close Support Platoon out of Nathan Smith, My counter part conducted a similar number of convoys equating into approx 250 successful convoys from Feb - Sep 2007

POMLT - As an MP had the task of Commanding a AUP Substation at Pashmul South. 6 MP's and 3 Infantry (1 Reserve and 2 Royals) and 14 AUP - tasks to include 4 to 6 foot patrols through AOR weekly, Combined OPS with November Company (Local Land owners at the time), VCP operations 1 to 2 times a week, Route Clearance of Summit to include the river crossing, training AUP, Command and Control of Pashmul South and surrounding AOR, Village searches and Mullah, Mallic liaison, ran shoes for kids throughout local villages and conducted pretty much any task requested by C/S 2 or Tango 1 across the river. All this well living in a 32 Sq meter hesco compound from Sept 2008 to Apr 2009. "Razorbacks"

The combination of MP and RCR produced a high competent and professional group of soldiers who became a family unto themselves and at times conducted ops that would make the most ardent battle group member enviable.

Not sure why the constant attempt to denigrate MP's RG but please delve a little deeper before making comments.

 

[GR66]

Quote from: E.R. Campbell on Yesterday at 13:42:21
* The really important requirements for MPs in battle are: traffic control, mostly in the read area, and POW handling - both are partof the Big L Logistics realm. I know some MPs will disagree; that's OK, they're wrong. If we have a real war again we can have RCMP units again when we need real, professional police officers in military uniforms.

Actually you are the one that is very wrong.  The idea that MPs do traffic control in the field went out in the late 80s.  POW/Detainee handling, sure but MPs bring much more to the table then I'm sure you will ever admit.  During our time in Afghanistan we had teams of MPs embedded with the Battle Groups and out in the FOBs on patrol with the infantry, both on foot and mounted. It was that way during my roto in 07 and it was something that had happened long before my tour.  I won't try to change your mind on the facts that you won't accept because you have already clearly stated you are not open to any discussion on the matter.  I'd just respectfully recommend that you educate yourself.

What I take from Mr. Campbell's comment and the response is that there has been an ongoing "blurring" of the ultimate role of the Army (and by extension the Military Police) over the years.  At one time the ultimate role of the Army was very clear - to defeat an enemy conventional force in the field.  The Army was to be designed, equipped and trained for battle with a peer or near-peer enemy conventional military. 

If this is still the ultimate, primary role of the Army then the primary role of the MPs should be exactly as expressed by Mr. Campbell and other, secondary roles should not detract from their ability to effectively fulfill this primary mission.  If training for and execution of other missions (collection of evidence at crime scenes, training of civilian police forces of allied states, on base municipal police functions, etc.) mean that the MP's don't have the manpower, training or equipment to fulfill their primary function, then perhaps the trade needs to be split into two unique functions or the secondary functions should be performed by another party that has that as their primary function (RCMP, etc.).

The above is a fine statement "in theory" but I can't fault the MPs for instead focusing on the roles that it is ACTUALLY called on to perform by the government and the CF.  The fact is that they are required to fulfill these so called "secondary" functions (doctrinally speaking anyway) on a regular basis while the supposed "primary" function is not really something that they are called upon to do even in regular large-scale exercises.

The same is true for the CF writ large.  It's the same reason we don't have Pioneer or Mortar Platoons in the infantry.  The same reason we have very limited Air Defence and Anti-Armour capabilities.  The same reason we don't have a dedicated CAS platform or attack helicopters.  Our logistics vehicles are rotting out, etc., etc., etc. 

The question was asked "who then, for instance in the case of a formation-sized deliberate crossing operation, would conduct the traffic control to ensure that the bridgehead force, force in place, and the breakout force were properly coordinated, route-wise?".  A fair question I guess, but probably more fair if you also asked "who is capable of performing a formation-sized deliberate crossing operation against a peer enemy?".

Lots of threads here question the correct roles, training and equipment requirements for various trades in the CF.  It's great to question but in my opinion none of those questions can really be answered until the people in Ottawa (military and political) answer the fundamental questions about what the role of the CF is and what we expect it to be able to do.

:2c:

 

[Edward Campbell]

First: an apology to MPs, my problem isn't with you, the people who are MPs, it is with why we have/need the MP branch, at all. I had the pleasure - right word - of commanding MPs in the past, both CProC and, a few years later, Security Branch members and they were, without exception, good soldiers doing good, useful work.

Second: I agree that convoy operations in a theatre like Afghanistan are important, vital roles for the MPs, but they seem, to me, to be modern or theatre specific analogs to traffic control.

Third: I am, indeed, basing my thinking on a peer-to-peer, BIG war. I think that's the worst case scenario and i think that we should be able to understand what's needed for that and then scale our current operational thinking accordingly.

Fourth: the world has changed and I recognize the valid requirements for e.g. cyber security and facility security and I appreciate that they are good, proper, MP roles.

All that being said, this is a useful discussion ... but  >  I still think logistics, administration, finance and security/policing are all more related to one another than they are to, say, engineering, intelligence or signalling, and they could be grouped into one, big, super-branch.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

At times they were acting as riflemen, as any soldier would in that situation.  We all know that every CAF members job, regardless of their trade affiliation, boils down to being a soldier first.  At other times though, many times, they were taking initial possession and processing of detainees, processing and gathering information and evidence at IED sites, providing advice and direction on detainee handling, gathering sworn statements from witnesses and/or victims of incidents in the field (of all types).  What many fail to realise is that every death in the field was processed and treated as if it was a crime so the gathering and preservation of evidence was very important. 

They also spend quite some time working with, mentoring and overseeing various elements of the ANP both in the field and at their various police posts or sub stations.

A useful function within a COIN theater, but what would their role be in a Ukrainian style conflict?

 

[jollyjacktar]

All that being said, this is a useful discussion ... but  >  I still think logistics, administration, finance and security/policing are all more related to one another than they are to, say, engineering, intelligence or signalling, and they could be grouped into one, big, super-branch.

My only concern with lumping the MP in with another branch is that they would lose the stand off they need to do their jobs.  I belived and still do that the trade needs to be kept at a distance from possible interference from local command.  My reasoning is that there were occasions when I was with 1MPPL to have attempts from outside command elements try and run interference or obstruct ongoing investigations.  I welcomed the thought of a CF Provost Marshall as the ultimate authority with the CoC leading straight to Ottawa.  If they are separate, they are, I believe better able to provide service without outside influences coming into play and cannot have their objectivity imparied.