Playing catch up...
Pusser said:
The trouble with this (and this was noticed in Afghanistan) is that the MPs have (or perhaps, had) largely shifted their focus in recent decades away from the "military" part of the Military Police. In many cases, the MPs had lost their military policing skills and this proved very problematic. I've actually been led to belied that the most effective MPs in Afghanistan (at least initially) were the Reserve MPs because, as they are not considered to be Peace Officers under the Criminal Code, they continue to focus their training and employment on military vice domestic policing.
While this is true, to a point, it is simply because the vast majority of MP are not employed in a field environment. Expecting a MP from Halifax to have the same level of field skills as a MP from 1, 2 or 5 MP Pl would be the same as expecting a trucker from Halifax to have the same level of field skills as a trucker from 2 Svc Bn. The demand for MP quickly outstripped the ability of the MP Pls to provide the numbers required. This was also true in Bosnia but the impact of integrating an amalgamation of MP from non-field units and the PRes was not an issue as it was not a war-fighting deployment and the problem then became what we were supposed to do with the 20% mandated PRes MP component who couldn't do police tasks on a mission that was primarily policing the force.
It would also be disingenuous to say their expertise went beyond individual soldier skills as the vast majority of PRes MP do not have experience at operating within the context of anything much bigger than a Coy Gp for limited duration's of time.
Having worked with PRes MP at numerous points in my career, the reality is the quality of pers, training and experience varies as widely across the PRes as it does across the MP Branch as a whole.
Eye In The Sky said:
They don't 'need' to be, but as of now they are MPs roles - not sure about present day but back when I wore a black beret, Convoy/VIP escort and TCPs were part of what armoured recce did. Close Protection and TASO - I don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion as to who could/should do this if not the MPs. Could it be like TacHel does for door gunners and draw from the cbt arms? Perhaps...
Any CP or TASO types who could chime in? Why, historically, have CP and TASO functions been part of the MP toolbelt?
The short answer is they are an MP role because we are assigned that task, these are not things we arbitrarily decided to do on our own. Although it seems like a large part of the MP Branch would like to just ignore security and force protection, the reality is they are core capabilities that we provide to the CAF.
The longer, historical, answer...
CP - Back in the day, we were closely aligned to RMP. In the late 80s, a Canadian became the Deputy Commander of one of the US Corps in Germany, I think it was VII Corps but might be wrong. As part of the threat assessment, it was determined he required a CP Team and MP were tasked to provide it. Training was provided by RMP and once the posting was over, the draw down of 4 CMBG started. Whether by luck or design, a significant cadre of that CP Team ended up at SIU Section Ottawa and they assumed the role of providing CP on an as required basis. They ran a couple of courses internal and also provided CP to the CDS on several occasions, most notably during the Gulf War when he had a team for the duration. At some point, I'm not exactly sure when but it might have been when SIU stood down in 97, JTF2 assumed the role of providing the CAF CP capability. There are a few pics floating around of them doing this task OUTCAN, including one where the PMO released a picture with identifiable face shots of the CP team, that was later re-released with black rectangles to hide their identities...
In 2003, when the Embassy in Kabul re-opened, an enhanced MPSS team was sent in with part of their mandate being "VIP Escort", although this quickly evolved into an adhoc-CP role for the Ambassador with them tapping into certain resources on the ground to gain some skill-sets on the fly but it was always emphasized that, at that time, the only thing being provided to the Ambassador was VIP Escort and not CP.
In 2004, when Gen Henault was selected to be Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, the threat assessment identified that he needed a CP team, the responsibility for that resides with the originating country. By this time JTF2 was fully immersed in the post 9/11 stuff and they were looking to off load the CP task. The decision was made to re-task MP with this and MP were again trained to provide the CP Team by RMP. The intent was to stand up a small CP unit based on this team once the task ended to maintain the capability and provide coverage on an "as required" basis. As Afghanistan evolved, things rapidly spiraled well beyond the initial thoughts on what was going to be required for CP. The Embassy quickly turned into a joint team of MP, one group doing the traditional MPSS role responsible for the Embassy and pers inside, and the other being a full-fledged CP team for the Ambassador. At the height of Afghanistan there was 1 x team in KAF plus 3 x teams in Kabul plus the CFPSU which had stood up in Ottawa as planned. This led to the task being opened up to other trades, initially the call was just for MSE Op as drivers but that proved a less than ideal solution as everyone needed to do everything so the complete CP Op role was opened. This had mixed success, the primary shortcoming being various levels of member's chains of command refusing to make non-MP available for additional missions, and it was the major reason that the Branch opened a back door in the requirement to have a 2 year diploma waived if the member was a trained CP Op. The hope was pers who wanted to keep doing CP but who were being blocked by their chain of command would OT/CT into the trade to keep doing the task.
When we left Afghanistan the expectation was that CFPSU would be able to fill the reduced requirements as we entered the much advertised operational pause and if that was the case, all would be well and the Branch would be more than capable of providing the capability without being stressed. But the reality is CFPSU is almost completely dedicated to CDS' tasks, the overseas missions have continued (Op ADDENDA is the ongoing CP mission in Kabul, plus a team to Op IMPACT MLT plus some other stuff).
TASO - The first I remember of MP being put on aircraft for direct security duties that were not CODE 1 VIP (aka Air Marshalls on the VIP flights) was during the siege of Sarajevo. I had several friends who were flying in and out aboard Hercs and their primary duty was security on the aircraft, particularly when non-CF pers were onboard. Although the MP Branch as a whole had close ties to RMP, the Air Command MP formed close links with the USAF Security Police. Around about 1998-99, the Air Force MP stood up the "Airfield Security Force", to provide a deployable Force Protection package to provide Airfield defence. As usual, we did it the Canadian way and instead of instituting a full-time capability, it was an ad-hoc organization with each guardhouse on an air force base being responsible for providing a certain number of pers each, that came together for exercises, with a small HQ element full-time in Trenton. Part of their mandate was providing pers on aircraft for security. Around the same time the USAF was implementing their PHOENIX RAVEN program. Although ASF deployed into Kosovo with the helicopters, the concept died shortly thereafter but the RCAF still wanted the ability to put MP onto aircraft with the PHOENIX RAVEN program being the template. MP being on the first flights into Afghanistan when SOF deployed in late 2001. Since that time MP have continued to do the TASO mission as tasked by RCAF. The "official" capability ask is for 1 x TASO mission at a time but right now, there are 2 x teams on Op IMPACT plus 1-3 teams on non-Op IMPACT flights at any given time. As with us having the task, we don't decide which flights will have TASO, that is up to RCAF with AF MP Gp trying to shape the asks when possible.
PuckChaser said:
How nice of them. If the trade is that strapped, perhaps they should give up all the high speed stuff and focus on core tasks?
Sure thing. Unfortunately, just like we didn't decide to start doing this stuff on our own, we also can't just decide to not do it on our own either. Plus, as already mentioned, security and force protection are our core tasks. In fact, my argument usually is policing is a contributor to security and force protection and we had it right back in the day when we were the Security Branch and had Security Officers and Military Police as opposed to being the Military Police Branch with Military Police Officers and Military Police.
We are strapped for the exact same reason other branches are, but in these particular instances it is because the demand is beyond what we are set up for with permanent, dedicated, positions.
SeaKingTacco said:
The MP branch also has a significant chunk of its PML doing security work at embassies overseas, for GAC.
A legitimate question could be asked: is that the best use of police officers? Are there other alternatives that would free up scarce MPs for duties either on bases or for CF deployments?
Our pers at MPSS are seconded to GAC, they do not count against our PML as GAC owns and pays for them, lock, stock and barrel. They are still members of the CAF for admin, discipline etc.
The reason GAC asked for MP to fill the positions is because of the security mandate of the Branch. My argument is we aren't providing the same quality as we did when we hadn't lost the focus on the security ball due to the policing obsession but GAC is still happy with what we are providing and keep asking for increases in numbers. These guys do not provide any level of policing to GAC, or the CAF for that matter. Totally outside their remit. RCMP is responsible to do any GAC type police support, CFSU(O), CFSU(E) or CFNIS is responsible for CAF stuff.
Old Sweat said:
As I recall, in the mid seventies - say circa 74-76 - FMC was offered the opportunity to provide embassy security details, which would have provided an opportunity to reward good guys and gals and broaden their experience. The Commander turned it down for whatever reason, but let's say the view of the utility of the task from the coal face differed from the perspective from the executive suite.
When a new Embassy was built in Beijing in the late 80s, combat arms pers augmented the MP at the Detachment in order to provide an enhanced presence. My understanding is they did roving patrols, escorts etc. The is much more to the job that is being done in MPSS than being a simple security guard. While that still occurs at a few missions, the reality is the vast majority of pers are providing security management services. Not rocket science by any stretch and you could train other trades to do it but at the end of the day the customer wants MP and that is what we (CAF) are obligated to provide.
Poppa said:
IMO what we need to do better as a branch is take a look at what it is we do on a day to day basis. Policing, TASO, CP or whatever and do an honest assessment of our training IOT do that role. Does a TASO need a badge? I'd say no...so we train our PRes to do it, Port security - PRes, MPSS - PRes. Actually anything that does not specifically require a badge let the PRes side of the branch take care of it freeing up the 156 guys to police.
As you're no doubt aware, there are efforts ongoing to integrate PRes MP into some of these activities. Reality is none of these will ever be 100% PRes for the simple fact that you always need pers who can go out the door at minimal notice and, sometimes, be ordered out the door. The first attempt to send a PRes member out the door on a TASO mission didn't work because of passport issues for instance and I also know a reserve MP who refuses to deploy on any more CP missions because he did his "1". In both instances, Reg Force MP have had to fill the task, at extremely short notice in the case of the TASO mission. There is certainly scope for augmentation but just like PRes MP can't fill the MP Pl role on their own, none of these capabilities will be anything other than augmentation.
