Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
. . .

Several solutions are normally discussed for this problem. All have shortcomings:

1. Use existing military resources, particularly military police, to provide such advice and support. The problem is that American MPs are not trained, educated, and organized to be a national police.
2. Task the State Department to develop such a capability. The problem with this is that they have nothing like the requisite expertise or institutional interest.
3. Create a new organization within the Department of Defense to do this. I kind of like this one, but it would be expensive.
4. "Outsource" it, either to contractors or other nations that do have such a national police capability (France, Italy, Canada, etc). The problem with this, of course, is that contracting it out does not have a very good track record, and other states may not have the capability or the will to undertake the job at a necessary level.
5. Task the Department of Homeland Security to develop an expeditionary law enforcement capability. The problem here is that, say, pulling American border guards out of Arizona to go help stabilize another state and train its national police would be politically difficult, maybe impossible.

Ultimately, it's a big problem for which all solutions are flawed.
Fatal flaws cannot...

1. MPs, see my previous comment.

2. State is the last place to do this for many reasons including those you cite. As an aside, the USAID and contract elements have worked several places and USAID should be resurrected and removed from the pernicious influence of State. Problem with the AID contractor model is that while it is proven to work in benign or not ovely hostile environments (see dozens of examples in the 50-today period), it does not do nearly as well in the event of hostilities (see Afghanistan and Iraq). Part of the problem there being attracting quality contract personnel. Having that model available where appropriate is a good idea, a more robust capability is required for really hot spots.

3. A new organization in DoD would be flat bad. Another bureaucracy, another 'DoD Field Agency' competing for dollars, another DHS...

4. Your objections say it all. Relying upon weak reeds and all that, plus the recurring problem of national agendas...

5. Either someone is a master of satire or they're trying to scare us. The USBP themselves will tell you that they are the most problem plagued Fedral LE agency; DHS is an unmitigated disaster on all levels other than as a brilliant example of why creating new bureaucracies is not smart and should be avoided if at all possible. Giving them another mission and organization would be marginally worse tha a new DoD aggregation.

The only flaw in a mix of AID operated, contractor supported operations where appropriate and a dedicated and trained MP Constabulary training and advisory organization (which should NOT work for the PMG) for those places where hostilities are present or likely is the training of the MPs. That is so easily remedied as to be inconsequential, it could be done in a year or two.

As an aside, there were two Pams floating about in the early 1960s, green covers so MP School as opposed to DA I think, that discussed (a) training of MPs to support counterinsurgency and (b) structuring a model police force for a developing nation. IIRC, both made sense. They're bound to be in someones Library, perhaps even at Carlisle.

I have always dearly enjoyed the ability of the US Armed forces to reinvent wheels and further have gotten giggles from the fact that in recent years, many of those wheels tend to be triangular or square.

It is absolutely a big problem but there is, for once an easy solution (well, easy if you can get the bureaucracy and the competing interests aligned...).