Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I recently heard that the US Army want's to get rid of MPs except for combat environments and overseas bases and replace them with some sort of civilian DOD cops on stateside bases ... why is this? Are the MPs too expensive? Is it because they are needed in Iraq?
I don't understand the concept behind the civilianzation of the military law enforcement world.
Military Police will never be done away with. It is true that in Garrison, there is a large civilian and contract force - mainly for the admistration and the gate duties. MPs still patrol and still investigate when not deployed.
IIRC there are caps in the number of uniformed bodies allowed. Probably trying outsource whatever work in garrison can be put into civillian hands & shift uniformed bodies into trigger pulling, deployable positions.
The concept revolves around giving soldiers a rest when they return home from deployments and spreading the workload. MP's that return home need to focus on family, rest, and retraining to go back on a deployment. Civilian augmentation on stateside bases allows some balance.
Also, if the numbers change or deployments increase or decrease, adjustments (in personnel numbers) can be much quicker with the civilians or contractors. This is being done with a lot of skills and specialities with most logistic functions being contracted out within the states. The total number of soldiers is limited so they are doing whatever is necessary to maximize the numbers they do have.
The concept revolves around giving soldiers a rest when they return home from deployments and spreading the workload. MP's that return home need to focus on family, rest, and retraining to go back on a deployment. Civilian augmentation on stateside bases allows some balance.
Also, if the numbers change or deployments increase or decrease, adjustments (in personnel numbers) can be much quicker with the civilians or contractors. This is being done with a lot of skills and specialities with most logistic functions being contracted out within the states. The total number of soldiers is limited so they are doing whatever is necessary to maximize the numbers they do have.
Pardon me but what I see is rationalizing letting private business make more profit from our defense needs and the hiring of mercenaries rather than regulars.
Pardon me but what I see is rationalizing letting private business make more profit from our defense needs and the hiring of mercenaries rather than regulars.
How is hiring civillians to do standard police work-traffic enforcement, physical security, etc. - on stateside military bases "Hiring mercenaries"
I suppose you think the civillian caterng co.'s who run the mess halls are "mercenaries" too?
Pardon me but what I see is rationalizing letting private business make more profit from our defense needs and the hiring of mercenaries rather than regulars.
I agree with you on not liking undeserved profits off the defense needs but when Congress limits the Army to 535,000, the current requirements CANNOT be accomplished with that number.
You can blame current deployments but you need to go back to '93 when the Army was cut down to only 10 divisions and then was asked to go to Bosnia two years later. In '93 is when you started seeing more contracted food, logistic, and guard services - this isn't new.
It would be cheaper to increase the Army to 900,000 but the long term cost of paying the retirements would eventually swamp the system.
I agree with you on not liking undeserved profits off the defense needs but when Congress limits the Army to 535,000, the current requirements CANNOT be accomplished with that number.
You can blame current deployments but you need to go back to '93 when the Army was cut down to only 10 divisions and then was asked to go to Bosnia two years later. In '93 is when you started seeing more contracted food, logistic, and guard services - this isn't new.
It would be cheaper to increase the Army to 900,000 but the long term cost of paying the retirements would eventually swamp the system.
Very informative, thank you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
quite common
