What are your thoughts on the Army eliminating the MP Corps?

I agree 100% with Your View Colonel and having spent 22 years as a military Member in USAF Air/Security Police there is no good substitute for that. We have worked with DOD Police and that's fine but as a supplement NOT a replacement. My Military Police career also led to a career as a Full time civilian Police officer as well which I had the training and experience for. The Military Police background also put Me at the top of the list for any civilian Department I had applied and I had a choice of jobs.

I also see possible recruiting issues too. I was a civilian cop for 6 years and enlisted to do specifically do law enforcement. Then I became a CID Special Agent and really loved the MP Corps. I wouldn't have enlisted if only combat MPs were available.

It is my understanding that the core mission of POWs, traffic control and VIP security is not changing. The main change is in the stateside garrison law enforcement mission and additional cross training for 11B and 19D.
When I was in, 35+ years ago we had that cross training and that became apparent as to how much training there was when I attended the NCO Academy. MPs and Scouts were singled out in weapons and navigation classes.
I'm not opposed to more DOD Police on bases but wonder how that reception will be from other commanders on base. Whatever form the changes are, the critical mission needs to be priority.

I totally agree with you SGM...Internment and Resettlement Operations: Army Field Manual FM 3-39. 40. There's a HUGE need for this and we need trained Soldiers who know what to do in and what not to do when working with detainees in the theater internment facility (TIF). I was the COG in Iraq at Taji, and that amount of politcal and red tape when working with detainees is ridiculous! Definitely isn’t not the most desirable or sought off job, but it provided great opportunities for HUMINT operations and the amount of intel it provided to the US Forces was instrumental. In all....We still need 31B and 31E MOSs

LTC Jason Mackay SGM Bill Frazer @
Don't know when the designation
changed, but we were tasked with EPW Operations in the desert in 1991. (Enemy Prisoner of War - EPW)

MSG Thomas Currie - Very much aware, of the SOW, a Reserve Maintenance Unit I commanded back in the early 90s was deployed to Kuwait because of the SOW. The company contracted to maintain the equipment use by the military for defense on the Kuwaiti border had "Maintain the equipment to 10/20 standards" in the contract. And as many of us know, if the equipment is basically functioning, that may be considered 10/20. You don't have to do any "A services" on equipment if it starts and can preform it's primary function. The Army found out almost 3 years after the gulf war that the contractor wasn't even changing fluids on equipment, because as long as a rotating unit could get in a Bradly or M1, start it up and drive it out to the border it was considered in operating condition. So when called on it, the company said, sure we can do "A services" but it would require a modification of the contract and BTW it's going to cost this much more. So the Army rotated Reserve Maintenance Units for 29 day AT missions (Overseas AT) to perform A services and a few other minor maintenance issues. Mind you I commanded a DS level maintenance unit that was used to change oil. Great moral for the unit, being overseas, but a lot of miss used talent.

Well, I see issues already. Contractors are not a good substitute for MPs. This all about the bean counters in the Pentagon, saving money for themselves. Love those Security Police (SPs), MPs and Shore Patrol, especially overseas working "Town Patrol"

I was an SP 50 years ago in the AF. My sgts started as APs. They told me the AF considered us as “red-headed step children” and I see really nothing has changed, sadly. The rumor I heard while serving was that the SPs, Army and Marine MPs, and Navy Master at Arms were going to be merged into a super MP corps that you joined, separate of any of the branches. I guess that is what DoD police are these days.

What this is is an attempt to put more troops in combat positions, and reduce support troops. Support troops go whereever the unit is whether in garrisin or in combat. Contractors cannot be forced to go into a comber zone. No matter what the contract is whether it is vehicle maintenance, weapons repair, or food service, they do not have to go into the combat environment. Good in principal, but really horrible in practice. Military support goes with the troops whereever that may be!

I agree with you on some points, but not all. I was an MP for six years and maintained contact with many Army MPs. Where I worked as a peace officer in Texas, we had daily contact with the Navy and Marine Corps MPs with concurrent jurisdiction on the post. I have also worked with the DOA and the DOD police. One thing that has stood out to me is that the strength of the MPs is directly proportional to the emphasis by the current commander of that installation.
The Army MPs started changing when our philosophy changed in the mid-80s. Once we left “of the troops, for the troops” to “assist, protect, defend,” we lost something.
I can tell you the Civilian police officers at Stewart, mostly (80%), did not have the same drive or motivation as the actual military police. When we had walking patrols in the housing area you never saw a DOD/DOA officer walking a beat. When we had non-supervisory meetings with the Colonel and PMO CSM the non-mps were usually the topic of discussion. Some of the DOA/DOD officers had never served and tried to act as they were CSMs. You can imagine how well that went over.
As far as law enforcement on post, when I was an MP at Stewart, we had a strong Officer and NCO command staff that backed us all the way up to the post commander. I have seen other posts where the command staff was not as supportive, and it showed all the way down to where the enforcement officers were basically relegated to security posts with very strict guidelines.

SGT J W - ONE of the biggest problems that I see is simply that many of the major functions of an MP unit are almost never practiced in CONUS and rarely practiced anywhere until actually needed.

My experience is stale by now, but my impression is that MP units in CONUS either are part of the garrison command structure or get treated that way even if they officially belong to the tenant unit. This may or may not give them an opportunity to work as law enforcement, but absolutely ensures that they won't be practicing any of the tactical missions they are supposed to perform.

Very true but in CONUS duty assignments there is no opportunity to train for wartime missions. Any change, from what I understand, is to the CONUS assignments.

My understanding is that this change would apply to CONUS bases so the reduced manpower can concentrate on wartime missions and training and there would still be garrison MPs in all overseas posts. Not sure exactly how it would work but I know from experience that there is no real wartime mission training in CONUS assignments because all your time is dedicated to law enforcement on post. Allowing CONUS units to have more training would be a benefit all around.

May God save us from those pencil pushing imbeciles.