Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen
The real success of VCPs, as we say in the UK, is the SNAP VCP, inserted by helicopter or vehicle, that just occur without warning. They are a de facto surprise attack, on moving traffic, and highly effective in restricting the bad guys freedom of action.

I am also sceptical of the fixed VCPs as they are usually just targets and sources of confrontation. Obviously they do serve some useful purpose, but it is limited.
I'm in complete agreement with your take on the military utility of both aspects. I'd just like to add - perhaps the obvious - that the former requires good intelligence to be effective. This builds on JC's comment that Since they require a lot of training to get done right, they are typically done poorly. - not only does rapid insertion of a TCP require specific training, it requires a high level of coordination among disparate elements to obtain results reflective of the effort.

As others have elaborated on, fixed TCPs in a hot environment are a bad idea. However, when the op environment is less hostile, their purpose is more as a show of presence and a deterrent (like DUI checkpoints) than an aggressive collection effort - although they often manage to roll up a few of the dumber criminals. (As an aside, I recall a couple of towns in CA whose PDs were forced to do away with their DUI checkpoints because of accusations that they were engaged in "racist profiling" to pick up illegal aliens)
Quote Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso
The last time I was there, the static TCP was a favorite of the IA.
They were a favorite of Saddam's security forces as well. Wandering about Baghdad during the UNSCOM timeframe, they were obvious at various points throughout the city. However, they were definitely static locations, and smuggling, prostitution and other various illicit activities managed to criss-cross Baghdad all around those checkpoints.....