Gendarmerie / Paramilitary Policing (again)

[carl]

Stan:

Since 1898, at one time or another, we've occupied Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Haiti, the Philippines, Korea, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Italy, Germany and probably a bunch of places I haven't thought of. The point of the article that I linked to above is occupation is something the military does, often; so it would be wise for it, specifically the Army, to think about how to do it well.

[J Wolfsberger]

The point of the article that I linked to above is occupation is something the military does, often; so it would be wise for it, specifically the Army, to think about how to do it well.

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.

[Steve Blair]

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.

Ya mean sorta how they used to use the Marines?

[TheCurmudgeon]

Ya mean sorta how they used to use the Marines?

There was a time where the Marines were the only standing land force authorized by the Constitution, so yes, it would have fell to the Marines before WWI.

[carl]

There was a time where the Marines were the only standing land force authorized by the Constitution, so yes, it would have fell to the Marines before WWI.

The Army did it in the Philippines, in the South, in Mexico, Cuba and other places, all before WWI.

[carl]

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.

[TheCurmudgeon]

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.

[carl]

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.

[TheCurmudgeon]

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.

[Steve Blair]

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.