Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: Gendarmerie / Paramilitary Policing (again)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
    As an alternative, why not establish a completely separate American Gendarmerie? Maybe put it under control of the State Department, and limit its TOE to lightly armored vehicles and small arms.
    Well I suppose you could do that if you ran out of Marines and had a whole bunch of extra money and manpower to spare waiting around. It is easier if you have the forces that took the place do the job, as they have so often in the past. Given our history, it is as much part of the military's job as taking the place.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  2. #2
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Well I suppose you could do that if you ran out of Marines and had a whole bunch of extra money and manpower to spare waiting around. It is easier if you have the forces that took the place do the job, as they have so often in the past. Given our history, it is as much part of the military's job as taking the place.
    I am not sure that is true. In the past we have put together a military force out of the civilian population. They were there for as long as they needed to be, and then they were gone. They were not a "professional" military.

    Today you have a different system in the US. A professional military trained to search and destroy. I don't think history is on their side. I think they have a different attitude than there predecessors in WWII or maybe even Korea and Vietnam where the draft was still bringing civilians in for a short stint and then they were gone.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  3. #3
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    I am not sure that is true. In the past we have put together a military force out of the civilian population. They were there for as long as they needed to be, and then they were gone. They were not a "professional" military.

    Today you have a different system in the US. A professional military trained to search and destroy. I don't think history is on their side. I think they have a different attitude than there predecessors in WWII or maybe even Korea and Vietnam where the draft was still bringing civilians in for a short stint and then they were gone.
    In the Philippines it was largely a professional Army that did the occupying, as it was in the South. The Marine occupation forces in the old days were professionals, as were the soldiers who occupied the American frontier. The draft was an anomaly in American history. A professional force has been the norm. Those forces handled things well enough. The current Army may prefer to concentrate on the bang and boom stuff but given the history of what it has been called upon to do, professional competence would tend to ask that it at least acknowledge that and think about it some.
    Last edited by carl; 01-30-2013 at 11:54 PM.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  4. #4
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default Learn something new every time I come here

    Carl,

    I never really thought of the US Army as a large force prior to WWI. I was wrong to use the term "draft" since it has a specific meaning. Volunteer would have been better. I have always had the misconception that it was a small force (15-20K) that grew as needed to deal with specific situations (the civil war, the Indian wars). I never really thought of them as occupying anything outside of the America's other than the Philippines until the twentieth century with the Philippines being their only real occupation experience.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  5. #5
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    Carl,

    I never really thought of the US Army as a large force prior to WWI. I was wrong to use the term "draft" since it has a specific meaning. Volunteer would have been better. I have always had the misconception that it was a small force (15-20K) that grew as needed to deal with specific situations (the civil war, the Indian wars). I never really thought of them as occupying anything outside of the America's other than the Philippines until the twentieth century with the Philippines being their only real occupation experience.
    Curmudgeon, you're correct when it comes to the size of the Army prior to World War I. State Volunteer units were involved in the early stages of the Philippines, but most of them were gone by about 1902.

    The Army never really "grew" to deal with the Indian Wars. It expanded slightly after the Civil War to deal with the greater expanse of territory it needed to cover, but remained at more or less the same strength from 1866 until 1898. In fact, it shrank between 1866 and 1870 (mainly in terms of infantry regiments - cavalry remained constant at 10 regiments). It also never really took in Volunteer units...in fact they were normally resisted as being more trouble (and expense) than they were worth. There are exceptions, but they were not the norm by any means.

    It has been argued that Frontier duty was really more like constabulary duty, which might explain why some Army officers performed well in the Philippines. Linn's work has shown that this wasn't always the case, and it certainly doesn't explain the Marine Corps' record in this area. Bickel's "Mars Learning" is really worth reading when it comes to studying how "lessons learned" may or may not have influenced doctrine in this area.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  6. #6
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Is there some standard definition of gendarme? As an American their role alludes me. Are any or both of the following correct?

    • Their jurisdiction is outside of that of local agencies, meaning that they do some of what state troopers and FBI agents do in the U.S.
    • They have civil as well as military jurisdiction, thus obviating the need for MPs.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  7. #7
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default What is a Gendarmerie?

    The Wiki gives a definition as:
    A gendarmerie or gendarmery is in principle a military force charged with police duties among civilian populations. Members of such a force are typically called "gendarmes". The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary describes a gendarme as "a soldier who is employed on police duties" and a "gendarmery, -erie" as "gendarmes as a body".
    Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarmerie

    Later it says:
    In comparison to civilian police forces, gendarmeries may provide a more disciplined force whose military capabilities make them more capable of dealing with armed groups and with all types of violence.
    Generally they are national bodies, which historically have been for internal defence - of the state against threats and not with responsibility for the breadth of roles normally associated with civilian law enforcement. The emphasis is on group action, so they are often based on a company equivalent; in many places working away from their homes.

    In Western Europe their responsibilities are now far wider, especially when internal defence has declined and public disorder is now irregular.

    I cannot think of any US LE body being like a Gendarmerie.
    davidbfpo

Similar Threads

  1. Predictive Policing
    By Jedburgh in forum Law Enforcement
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 04-14-2019, 02:04 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-24-2019, 11:30 AM
  3. Policing in the Middle East
    By Red Rat in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-11-2015, 06:18 PM
  4. What are the SWC thoughts on policing in combat?
    By Rob Thornton in forum Law Enforcement
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 04-28-2008, 02:41 AM
  5. On Policing the Frontiers of Freedom
    By SWJED in forum It Ain't Just Killin'
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2006, 01:51 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •