Gendarmerie / Paramilitary Policing (again)

[Fuchs]

This assumes a whole lot, especially about future wars and whether it's a good idea to prepare for them (you should probably not give a machete to your child because it got badly hurt in a knife fight - you may prefer to take its knife away and make sure it stops having stupid ideas).

[carl]

Here is an article that appeared in Best Defense last year. You may have already seen it but if not...

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts...s_actual_tasks

The author argues that the Army should take more interest because for so much of its history, it has acted as an occupation force.

I don't see why the Army should develop a structure more suited to occupation than fighting. The many occupations we have done were done well enough by forces that were regular fighting forces. The more important thing is that the Army leaders concede that it is something that should be thought about and allow good leaders, well recruited and trained, the freedom to do things that need to be done according to the local situation in the occupied area.

[davidbfpo]

Ah TheCurmudgeon,

SWC has passed through this area of interest before.

Just using 'gendarmerie' in a simple search I found threads:

1943 - Reorganization of the Imperial Iranian Gendarmerie (x7 posts 3k views)
What are the SWC thoughts on policing in combat? (x37 posts 11k views)
Federal Restrictions on using U.S. MPs for law enforcement on foreign soil (x40 views 7k views)
Law Enforcement Advisory Capability as a Major Shortcoming (x32 posts, 5k)
Cops Show Marines How To Take On Taliban (x20 posts, 5k views)
U.S. Police in Peace and Stability Operations (x6 posts, 4k views)

Incidentally during 'The Troubles' the British Army increased the size of it's military police, with two regiments deployed at one time - when the army had responsibility for LE long ago.

In the Balkan peacekeeping much emphasis has been on the presence of small, company sized gendarmerie units; invariably from France, Italy and Spain.

In Afghanistan the UK was handicapped in deploying police advisers as most LE have no arms training, let alone experience; hence the reliance on our few armed police bodies (RUC/PSNI and MoD Police).

Didn't the USMC or US Army announce last year standing up a new enhanced military police unit?

[J Wolfsberger]

Didn't the USMC or US Army announce last year standing up a new enhanced military police unit?

Was this what you were thinking of? "The Marine Corps is always looking for a few good people. If you have pride in yourself and what you do, the Marine Corps Civilian Police may be for you."

I recall hearing something along those lines a few years back, but I can't find anything now. I do think the Army MPs have increased their emphasis on population control.

[Morgan]

David, I think you may be referring to the Marine Corp Law Enforcement Battalions. The Army used to have Constabulary Groups during post-WW2 Europe and several years ago, an article advocated bringing those back during the Iraq War http://www.armytimes.com/community/o...1225/….I think it would make sense to have them for future use as well.

[davidbfpo]

Morgan,

Thank you. Yes it is the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Battalions, which on a quick Google check have an active and reserve component.

Hopefully such formations learn from outside the USA too. The RCMP and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) have considerable UN experience, plus the key European Gendarmerie nations and a few others beyond - India comes to mind, with a variety of para-miltary formations. I am sure they'd be welcome in Northern Ireland too - not on the street though!

[TheCurmudgeon]

First, Yes Dave - I thought we had, but I was looking for something specific. I apologize for creating a redundant thread.

Carl,

Thanks, that's the one.

I started in the Army back in the early 1980's as an enlisted MP, so my memory of our actual mission is going to be clouded by time and youthful misinterpretations but I remember there being a FLOT and something called RACO (Rear Area Combat Operations). As MP's it was our forte. It was primarily a security mission. In those days we understood there would be civilian's on the battlefield but they were not of strategic significance. None-the-less, it was our job to maintain security, keep the supply routes open, and do limited humanitarian operations.

Then came the era of "the battlefield is everywhere". There was no rear area and infantry, armor, and artillery units conducted operations in what back then would have been considered a rear area. They brought with them a combat (as opposed to security) mindset. I personally believe that the two missions are significantly different enough that separate force structures (MTOE, ARTEPS, etc.) are warranted. I believe that has become apparent as we began to order MRAPs and other vehicles designed for a specific mission and teaching tactical site exploitation, or as it is known to almost everyone else, processing a crime scene.

I also believe that no one in the Army want's to admit that, or go down that road. We prefer near peer competitors. I am just curious if the capabilities of our sister services, particularly the air force, can effect regime change what is the Army uniquely capable of doing ... what it can do is hold the ground after the collapse of whatever government used to exist. Therefore we become the element with the task of accomplishing whatever ultimate political objective accompanies the military mission. In the recent past (and in the foreseeable future) that will mean supporting a more liberal, human rights oriented government. In the past even the MP's did not need to go that far.


In any case, thanks for the article.