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

[Edward Campbell]

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.

Fair point ...

 

[Ostrozac]

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

Every peer on peer theatre is also a COIN theater behind about the rear of the brigade boundary. Partisans, shattered cities, refugees, enemy SOF raids, terrorism, rebuilding civil society, and all the three block war non-kinetic activities are all also happening at the same time that the peer on peer fight is trading MLRS strikes and burning each others' tanks.

A civilian population needs to be policed, by somebody, and even if our MP aren't policing them, the MP branch are probably the best people to liase with/mentor/equip/train the civilian police presence who are. And deal with the inevitable paperwork of fatalities, collateral damage, looting, and war crimes.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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.

A tad insecure? Please show, within my post, where I denigrated MPs. I stated what I knew from personal observation, and things posted by MPs, and simply asked for clarification, or delving a little deeper as you say.

So, seeing as I was doing exactly as you are requesting, you are the one that seems to have the axe to grind.

BTW, many of those tasks you relate to are also part of Armoured Recce taskings. I've also seen them done by purple trades. In our last war, no one had a lock on who did what and Unit\ Corps battle taskings appeared to be conducted by whoever was available in many cases.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Every peer on peer theatre is also a COIN theater behind about the rear of the brigade boundary. Partisans, shattered cities, refugees, enemy SOF raids, terrorism, rebuilding civil society, and all the three block war non-kinetic activities are all also happening at the same time that the peer on peer fight is trading MLRS strikes and burning each others' tanks.

A civilian population needs to be policed, by somebody, and even if our MP aren't policing them, the MP branch are probably the best people to liase with/mentor/equip/train the civilian police presence who are. And deal with the inevitable paperwork of fatalities, collateral damage, looting, and war crimes.

Thanks an interesting way to look at it.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Every peer on peer theatre is also a COIN theater behind about the rear of the brigade boundary. Partisans, shattered cities, refugees, enemy SOF raids, terrorism, rebuilding civil society, and all the three block war non-kinetic activities are all also happening at the same time that the peer on peer fight is trading MLRS strikes and burning each others' tanks.

A civilian population needs to be policed, by somebody, and even if our MP aren't policing them, the MP branch are probably the best people to liase with/mentor/equip/train the civilian police presence who are. And deal with the inevitable paperwork of fatalities, collateral damage, looting, and war crimes.

I will disagree with this to an extent as it disregards the role of CIMIC and host nation units (Free French, standing police forces in liberated countries, the ANP, etc) in building capabilities. Integral Bde MPs, to me, are better used in a purely military context for TCPs, control of soldiers, etc with CIMIC coordinating with Other government departments, in this case the RCMP, to develop police capability.

 

[Tibbson]

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.).

So just how to you propose these functions be split?  Not that I agree they should be.  The simple fact of the matter is that they cannot be split.  The RCMP (or any other civpol) will not go out in the field to perform the duties you speak of.  In fact, for CivPol to go anywhere outside the wire they called upon MPs to take them.  They don't have the training, manpower or equipment necessary to perform outside the wire.  Inside the wire is just as impossible to achieve.  Just what are they going to do inside the wire?  They have no legal authority to act in any law enforcement capacity while outside Canada.  The Criminal Code of Canada does not apply outcan and the RCMP have no authority to enforce any provisions under the NDA.  In many ways the fact that CivPol (RCMP and Provincial/Municipal members) are even deployed outside of Canada is more of a political move so that "the Force" and our politicians can say "Look what else we are doing".  Like Wolf, I was also with the MP Coy on Roto 3 and other then for some photo ops I didn't see much value added having them there.  Much in the say way having two members of Corrections Canada there to advise/oversee on the running of the local prison was essentially useless considering they couldn't even travel outside of the PRT unless someone else was able to undertake a major road move for them. 

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.

These are certainly not secondary functions.  They are all part of our primary function however its clear they don't fit into your antiquated view of what MP are supposed to be doing. 

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:

Actually, perhaps a better question is to ask why it's necessary for MPs to be conduct traffic control in such a situation.  Surely you can't be trying to state that nobody else is more then capable of standing in one spot and making sure traffic proceeds in an orderly fashion.  I don't know whether to be pleased you think MPs are the only ones skilled and responsible enough to perform such a function or that you feel such a task is beneath the dignity of everyone else and therefore only suited for an MP.  If you feel we are the only ones capable of such an important task then please let me know and I'll make sure to staff a service paper on the subject to get doctorin changed to reflect this important task. 

 

[Tibbson]

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.

While I can appreciate your comments I think there is one big area that is not being considered.  Like it or not there are over riding legal reasons why the MPs are their own Branch and why, in fact, the CFPM just finely assumed operational control of all aspects of the Branch. 

Many years ago, when I started with the Branch, MPs worked for their various Base Commanders.  We recieved our funds from that Base Commander and we recieved our directions from that Base Commander.  When that Commander didn't want an investigation proceeded with because perhaps cost too much or it was perhaps getting too close to him/her or a friend....it was shut down either directly or indirectly through the cutting off of funds necessary for the investigation. 

Competing priorities were also a major issue.  If the MPs needed a new vehicle and the Base Commander didn't care to supply it we would get the hand me downs from Base Transport.  K Cars, propane powered Liminas or worse where what was provided to the MPs.  I spent my first 2 years driving an AMC Hornet.  Necessary equipment such as silent partners were denied because they were too expensive. 

The MP Branch didn't just because what it is today because it felt like it.  Reports and studies, both from outside the Branch and inside, have determined the level of independence that is necessary for the Branch to have.  Legal bodies (courts) and judicial bodies (such as the MPCC) have dictated changes as well.  I really don't think these areas you note above could be combined into one larger organization while still retaining their functionality and their effectiveness.  They are separate for a reason and it's not just within organizations such as the military.  A city has agencies that look after logistics for the city, administration of the city, finance of the city, policing for the city and urban planning for the city.  Each of them as separate departments in their own right, with their own department heads running their departments as they see fit.  Combining them all would add no value and would only serve to add another layer of bureaucracy.

 

[Tibbson]

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 impaired.

Thats an excellent point.  I recall an incident (quite vividly) that took place a number of years ago where a LAV was involved in a training accident and one soldier died.  At the time the Unit was conducting predeployment training and they had a Section of reg force MPs with them.  The local Commander told the MPs point blank that they were to secure the scene until assistance arrived after which time they were to return to their exercise duties because they had a training schedule to keep.  Upon my arrival these MPs started to leave which meant that it was essentially me and my partner left to conduct the investigation, guard the scene, deal with the remains and otherwise carry the load.  I dealt directly with the Commander but he wouldn't budge and insisted that while the accident and death were tragic, he still had a training cycle to maintain and he was not going to release "his" MPs to conduct their duties.  Needless to say I made a few phone calls and within a very short amount of time this Commander was set straight and I got the support I needed.  More importantly one of our departed colleagues had his death fully investigated and the family was able to assured of circumstances of the death.  If MPs were combined within some form of "Super Branch" I can just imagine what would have happened.  That independence of command and control and the degree of autonomy they provide for are critical in ensuring overall effectiveness. 

 

[Tibbson]

I will disagree with this to an extent as it disregards the role of CIMIC and host nation units (Free French, standing police forces in liberated countries, the ANP, etc) in building capabilities. Integral Bde MPs, to me, are better used in a purely military context for TCPs, control of soldiers, etc with CIMIC coordinating with Other government departments, in this case the RCMP, to develop police capability.

So let me see if I understand.  You have one organization, the MP, who are trained to operate in both domestic policing rolls as well as in a deployed capacity.  You also have another organization, the RCMP in your example, who are trained in domestic policing.

Your view is that the best persons to train the ANP (which given the situation and operational environment is far from a civilian police agency) and others in a reconstruction or restoration situation is an agency with no concept of deployed policing?  Interesting.  If all things were equal and the battle was won with the enemy defeated and we were looking to rebuild civilian capabilities then I'd gladly agree with you but the way the ANP was required to operate was nowhere near the way in which a conventional police force would operate.  I think it makes more sense though to have an entity with experience in both forms of policing doing the training. 

 

[RCDtpr]

The fact is.....the military will always want the military policed by the military.  To have the RCMP, OPP or whoever police local bases...... Well frankly Ottawa doesn't want it's dirty laundry getting out...nor will ottawa accept their bases and property policed by people who ultimately don't answer to them.

You can't realistically expect a civilian police officer to give a rats *** about military protocol etc etc....and they are all (with the exception of the RCMP) unionized.

So the military can pay that Cpl 65k/yr or they can pay the rate of a Constable at close to 100k/yr BEFORE OT.

Like it or not people....MPs doing policing is probably here to stay.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not to mention how do you train people and retain them if they can't do their job when not deployed?

 

[Good2Golf]

...The Criminal Code of Canada does not apply outcan...

Offences Punishable by Ordinary Law

130. (1) An act or omission

(a) that takes place in Canada and is punishable
under Part VII, the Criminal Code or
any other Act of Parliament, or

(b) that takes place outside Canada and
would, if it had taken place in Canada, be
punishable under Part VII, the Criminal
Code or any other Act of Parliament,

is an offence under this Division and every person
convicted thereof is liable to suffer punishment
as provided in subsection (2).

Just so we're all tracking things correctly, we all know that the Criminal Code of Canada, as part of the Law of Armed Conflict in general, and as noted in Section 130 of the National Defence Act quoted above, DOES indeed apply outside of Canada where CAF members are concerned.

Right?

Whether RCMP were in theatre supporting the CAF directly or, say, a POMLT (where I can assure you that having worked with several RCMP and OPP officers in AFG, they did in fact know what they were doing 'outside the wire') mentoring ANP or other indigenous law enforcement agencies, they would be just as bound/enabled to enforce elements of the CCC.  Would that be applied in practice against CAF members?  Perhaps not, it might be left discretionarily to the militray COC, but one cannot categorically say that Canadian law enforcement officers, if deployed with CAF members and so tasked by the GoC, would not be able to carry out such tasks as assigned.


Regards
G2G

 

[McG]

... and I know several Canadian CIVPOL who did thier own force protection for patrols outside the walls of a base while in Afghanistan. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

As do I.  Both were switched on guys who worked hand in glove with the POMLET MP, took the same risks etc.  I was disappointed to learn that they would not be awarded the GCS as they were CIVPOL but the GCM instead.  I thought it insulting.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

So let me see if I understand.  You have one organization, the MP, who are trained to operate in both domestic policing rolls as well as in a deployed capacity.  You also have another organization, the RCMP in your example, who are trained in domestic policing.

Your view is that the best persons to train the ANP (which given the situation and operational environment is far from a civilian police agency) and others in a reconstruction or restoration situation is an agency with no concept of deployed policing?  Interesting.  If all things were equal and the battle was won with the enemy defeated and we were looking to rebuild civilian capabilities then I'd gladly agree with you but the way the ANP was required to operate was nowhere near the way in which a conventional police force would operate.  I think it makes more sense though to have an entity with experience in both forms of policing doing the training.

First, Afghanistan was a unique theatre of operations for all trades, including infantry, arty, logistics, MPs, etc. In a conventional war, or COIN for that example, the CIMIC will provide the link between the civilian/OGD elements and the host nation government. In A-Stan this meant the creation of the ANP (and ANA for that matter) which created a unique requirement to build a national police forcce where one did not previously exist. If you look at the US invasion of Iraq there are many who believe that a key failing of US policy was not leaving the Iraqi police forces and army operational post-invasion and attempting to rebuild those capabilities.

Further, in future operations/theatres we have zero/nil/no ability to predict what we may or may not need. Thats why we're returning to doctrine- it gives a base for which we can force generate other capabilities. MPs, doctrinally, provide the capabilities noted above, which should be the focus of the branch. Who knows, perhaps the next theatre we attack, use MPs for control of military and traffic, and then leave a la Iraq in 1991 or we invade a country with a standing police force.

 

[Tibbson]

First, Afghanistan was a unique theatre of operations for all trades, including infantry, arty, logistics, MPs, etc. In a conventional war, or COIN for that example, the CIMIC will provide the link between the civilian/OGD elements and the host nation government. In A-Stan this meant the creation of the ANP (and ANA for that matter) which created a unique requirement to build a national police forcce where one did not previously exist. If you look at the US invasion of Iraq there are many who believe that a key failing of US policy was not leaving the Iraqi police forces and army operational post-invasion and attempting to rebuild those capabilities.

Further, in future operations/theatres we have zero/nil/no ability to predict what we may or may not need. Thats why we're returning to doctrine- it gives a base for which we can force generate other capabilities. MPs, doctrinally, provide the capabilities noted above, which should be the focus of the branch. Who knows, perhaps the next theatre we attack, use MPs for control of military and traffic, and then leave a la Iraq in 1991 or we invade a country with a standing police force.

But you still have not clarified your contention that a civilian police department would be better suited to establish and train a police department that is required to act as both it's nations military police and it's civilian police within a country still actively at war.  It certainly seems to make sense to have a MP play a big part in helping to establish and train the ANP and then one day, once they and the country have reached an appropriate level of stability, have other agencies carry on and further conduct that training. 

If I apply your logic to the Afghan National Army it seems you are saying it would have been better to have some civilian contractor train the ANA and assist them to stand up then it would be to have trained and professional soldiers do that capability building.  Having CivPol do the same for ANP is just as misguided. 

 

[Tibbson]

The fact is.....the military will always want the military policed by the military.  To have the RCMP, OPP or whoever police local bases...... Well frankly Ottawa doesn't want it's dirty laundry getting out...nor will ottawa accept their bases and property policed by people who ultimately don't answer to them.

You can't realistically expect a civilian police officer to give a rats *** about military protocol etc etc....and they are all (with the exception of the RCMP) unionized.

So the military can pay that Cpl 65k/yr or they can pay the rate of a Constable at close to 100k/yr BEFORE OT.

Like it or not people....MPs doing policing is probably here to stay.

Unless DND surrenders policing jurisdiction to a civilian agency, as they did for the PMQ area (but not the PMQs themselves) in Winnipeg or as they did in Oromocto you won't see a civilian agency take over as they have no legal jurisdiction to do so.  The NDA and other pieces of legislation would require changes.  As well, you would still require MPs for service offences so there would be no cost savings at all.

There was a case study made many years ago in Borden to see about having the OPP take over policing of the base.  It was done around the time of cost shedding in the 90s and at the end of the day DND recognized they would need to retain an MP Det of 8-10 MPs of various ranks just to maintain the capability to conduct all security functions as well as other roles such as ID cards, background checks, security clearances and background checks.  The cost to DND for OPP replacement of the MPs would have been, at the time, $370,000 a year.  For that DND would have had one OPP officer on the base 24/7 with one more "in the area" (meaning anywhere within the Nottawasaga Det AOR).  The cost also included the cost for the vehicle that officer would need, vacation replacement, office space they would need on the base and other assorted administrative and contractual costs.  That cost was much more then it cost to maintain the entire MP Det they were looking to replace/outsource. 

Operationally DND would have lost a tonne of control and accountability.  I don't mean in an interference with MP ops ay but under the current system if Pte Bloggins doesn't show up for work Base authorities can inquire with the MPs to see if maybe he is cooling his heals in cells and if not the MPs will start to make inquiries.  Someone from the base makes the same call to the OPP and unless they are from another police agency they are basically going to be told "I can't discuss that with you".  Additionally, the Base is having some function such as an Armed Forces Day or Air Show and unless they were willing to pay for extra policing they will have a big issue. 

Legal sense, business sense, operational sense...there is a need for an MP organization.

 

[QV]

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?

GPS

 

[Tibbson]

Just so we're all tracking things correctly, we all know that the Criminal Code of Canada, as part of the Law of Armed Conflict in general, and as noted in Section 130 of the National Defence Act quoted above, DOES indeed apply outside of Canada where CAF members are concerned.

Right?

Actually, wrong.  While it is true that Section 130 of the NDA does apply, it is in fact a conduit through with other statutes can be used and it is actually Section 130 of the NDA that someone is charged with, pursuant to the applicable non-NDA statute.  The charge, and the criminal record that would go with a conviction, is for an offence under Section 130 of the NDA.  130 allowed military police to charge for other offences not already covered under the NDA while outside of Canada otherwise the NDA would have to be large enough to encompass all other laws individually articulated. 

Whether RCMP were in theatre supporting the CAF directly or, say, a POMLT (where I can assure you that having worked with several RCMP and OPP officers in AFG, they did in fact know what they were doing 'outside the wire') mentoring ANP or other indigenous law enforcement agencies, they would be just as bound/enabled to enforce elements of the CCC.  Would that be applied in practice against CAF members?  Perhaps not, it might be left discretionarily to the military COC, but one cannot categorically say that Canadian law enforcement officers, if deployed with CAF members and so tasked by the GoC, would not be able to carry out such tasks as assigned.

Actually, feel free to have a face to face discussion with any CivPol member who deployed and they will tell you quite clearly that they had absolutely no policing authority while outside of Canada.  Given the fact they were accompanying the CAF they were in fact subject to the NDA and should one of them have violated the NDA or any other Canadian law they could have been charged either under the NDA directly or through Sec 130, depending upon the offence they were alleged to have committed. 

I can actually say they would not be able to carry out law enforcement duties specifically for the reasons I have articulated before.  They have no authority to act under the NDA, and the CC does not apply on it's own.  They may, as any individual/soldier can, place someone under arrest and turn them over to the MP or make a report to the MP but in order for CivPol to be able to act independently outside of Canada they would need to be able to issue Appearance Notices or PTAs to any individual they wished to arrest and charge under the CC.  In order to do so you require a suitable legal structure present to be able to swear informations, register charges and process the matters further.  Since there is no Canadian civilian legal system while outside of Canada, and CivPol have no standing under the military system, not only do they not have the authority to act but they don't have the mechanisms required as well.

 

[Tibbson]

... and I know several Canadian CIVPOL who did their own force protection for patrols outside the walls of a base while in Afghanistan.

I can only speak to the time I was there and if your observations and experiences were different then I accept that and I'm glad to hear it was different.