Article

2010-01-15 Home Front: Politix

A Stability Police Force for the United States

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Uncle Phester 2010-01-15 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ] Top

#1 'nother name for KGB.

Posted by Chereting Snetch4156 2010-01-14 00:35|| 2010-01-14 00:35|| Front Page Top

#2 And the need is?

Posted by 3dc 2010-01-14 00:51|| 2010-01-14 00:51|| Front Page Top

#3 I read all 213 pages (part of what I do for a living). I'm not going to knee-jerk a comment. It's a study, not a plan-of-action. However, I am not comfortable with the concept as presented.

A few observations:

As repeatedly mentioned in the study, the Stability Police Force (SPF) is purported to be an OCONUS (Outside Continental US) unit. However, there were repeated mentions of SPF having similar duties as the Italian Carabinieri and the French Gendarmarie. Both those organizations also have in-nation police and security duties.

Perhaps the OCONUS nature of the SPF was taken as a given by both the authors and the study's recipent (U.S. Army). Perhaps that's why the constitutional-limitation concerns of establishing what would be a 'nation-building/nation-stability police force', were only mentioned a few times, and the potential civil liberties concerns not at all. However, the study alluded to those concerns by not explicitly advocating a permanent force, only a semi-permanent leadership cadre with force members pulled from a 'reserve'.

For those not inclined to read the entire report, Pages 121-124, regarding the US Marshals Service's Special Operations Group are what appears to be the authors' preference.

The idea of a para-military or quasi-military 'peacekeeping force' has been batted about for decades. There is, IMNSHO, a need for something along those lines. Just not necessarily this one - and in any case, not without some explicit and rigid restrictions established by law.

Posted by Pappy 2010-01-14 01:21|| 2010-01-14 01:21|| Front Page Top

#4 I'd like to understand that need. Either we are at war with a country, in which case we should do whatever international law allows yo achieve our objectives, or we are not and we should stay out of foreign countries, starting with Nato. I don't like dumping tax dollars on foreigners whether its as aid or policing funds. We shouldn't become the world's policeman, or gendarmerie.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-01-14 07:36|| 2010-01-14 07:36|| Front Page Top

#5 For additional details see series above entitled "The Day the Dollar Died."

Posted by Besoeker 2010-01-14 07:43|| 2010-01-14 07:43|| Front Page Top

#6 I'd like to understand that need.

I'd explain it to you, but based on your comment (which puts lie to the above sentence) and my experience with a significant percentage of Rantburg's commenters, it'd be a "teaching a pig to whistle" moment.

Posted by Pappy 2010-01-14 09:22|| 2010-01-14 09:22|| Front Page Top

#7 it'd be a "teaching a pig to whistle" moment.

Indeed, Pappy, but a lot of us would find it both entertaining and educational.

Posted by SteveS 2010-01-14 10:44|| 2010-01-14 10:44|| Front Page Top

#8 it'd be a "teaching a pig to whistle" moment.

Let me get the party started.
After WWII we converted several armored cavalry groups into Constabulary regiments. They were given internal security responsibility for the American sector of Germany.

A force like this would be very useful in a conventional or guerilla war. For example, during the invasion of Iraq, the biggest problem we had was attacks on our supply lines. A force like this could have made things easier.

Why not use MPs? there are ~~usually~~ always too few of them.

As for guerilla warfare, the big difference is the level of violence these men and women are trained to dish out.

For example, during the Clinton administration, 4 Recon Marines and 21 police got into a battle with some drug transporters in AZ. The 21 cops fired 19 bullets between them, and the 4 Marines fired 200 rounds.

Al

Posted by Frozen Al 2010-01-14 11:42|| 2010-01-14 11:42|| Front Page Top

#9 Pappy, since you read the doc and understand this better than I... Would such a police force be less of a target for bad guys trying to bog down or hurt the US than the US Military? I don't think so myself, so if we need a specialized police force why not encourage the US Military to create such a force. That way we lesson the bureaucracy and they can call in serious backup if things go bad.

Posted by rjschwarz 2010-01-14 11:43|| 2010-01-14 11:43|| Front Page Top

#10 Posse comitatus? Also where is the Constitutional basis for such an armed external federal agency outside of the Defense department?

Posted by Beldar Threreling9726 2010-01-14 11:49|| 2010-01-14 11:49|| Front Page Top

#11 For example, during the Clinton administration, 4 Recon Marines and 21 police got into a battle with some drug transporters in AZ. The 21 cops fired 19 bullets between them, and the 4 Marines fired 200 rounds.

Al

Gotta love the Marines! Body count?

Posted by Solomon Spogum5839 2010-01-14 11:49|| 2010-01-14 11:49|| Front Page Top

#12 It's not how many rounds you fire, it's how many target you hit.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2010-01-14 12:23|| 2010-01-14 12:23|| Front Page Top

#13 It's not how many rounds you fire, it's how many target you hit.

Not necessarily. It could be called suppressing fire. Keep the gomers heads down while a marksman picks them off.

Posted by Solomon Spogum5839 2010-01-14 14:10|| 2010-01-14 14:10|| Front Page Top

#14 I'd like to understand that need.

But, NS, multiple authorities fighting turf wars over the same mission is sooo effective!

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2010-01-14 15:18|| 2010-01-14 15:18|| Front Page Top

#15 I'd explain it to you, but based on your comment (which puts lie to the above sentence) and my experience with a significant percentage of Rantburg's commenters, it'd be a "teaching a pig to whistle" moment.

It was a sincere request. But if that's all it takes to make your argument wither, it must be a weak one indeed.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-01-14 19:29|| 2010-01-14 19:29|| Front Page Top

#16 I don't have time to read this report right now ... Pappy, is the suggestion something along the lines that Thomas Barnett has been pushing for some time, ie. the 'system administrators' vs. the hard combat troops?

Posted by lotp 2010-01-14 20:19|| 2010-01-14 20:19|| Front Page Top

#17 Oink?

Posted by gorb 2010-01-14 23:40|| 2010-01-14 23:40|| Front Page Top

#18 Posse comitatus? Also where is the Constitutional basis for such an armed external federal agency outside of the Defense department?

Posse comitatus - officially - precludes the use of Army and Air Force troops by local, state and Federal officials in a local capacity for law enforcement. Essentially it prevents troops from being used in a posse. It doesn't prevent the President or COngress from calling them out, as was done in the 1930s (Hooverville and various mining strikes). 1958 in Little Rock, and 1992 in the Los Angeles riots.

Would such a police force be less of a target for bad guys trying to bog down or hurt the US than the US Military?

Depends. From what the report implied, military forces would still be there (think Kosovo). What the idea is that things normally relegated to police work - fighting organized crime, street-level crime prevention and response, and smuggling, for examples - would be left to a police-type force with some infantry aspects.

After WWII we converted several armored cavalry groups into Constabulary regiments. They were given internal security responsibility for the American sector of Germany

Which is a very viable option again; the study did mention either converting an MP unit or creating a force with in the Coast Guard (which already has law-enforcement duties). The problem would be shielding soldiers or Coast-Guardsmen from any kind of ICC-based legal actions.

It was a sincere request. But if that's all it takes to make your argument wither, it must be a weak one indeed.

NS, I didn't interpret it that way. By all means, please tell me how:

Either we are at war with a country, in which case we should do whatever international law allows yo achieve our objectives, or we are not and we should stay out of foreign countries, starting with Nato. I don't like dumping tax dollars on foreigners whether its as aid or policing funds. We shouldn't become the world's policeman, or gendarmerie.

could be considered a "sincere request" when you've obviously formed your opinion. Having been around teh Burg a few years, I can recognize when something is going to be an exercise in futility.

is the suggestion something along the lines that Thomas Barnett has been pushing for some time, ie. the 'system administrators' vs. the hard combat troops?

Yes, and no. Part of it would be administrators. Part of it would be police/law enforcement, albeit heavier armed and more tightly organized. The study didn't really advocate any particular form to the latter.

The idea being to reinforce what existing police forces there are in-country, stand in as a police force if there is a lack of a native one, train native police and adminsitrators to make up a deficit.

One thing to remember - this isn't really a new concept. Marines were seconded to the Haitian gendarmarie and in the bananna republics to serve as leaders, trainers, and administrators.

What is new here is the concept of a federal-based force, with law enforcement assets being stationed within local and state police forces until called upon. That generates a lot of concerns which were not addressed in the study.

Posted by Pappy 2010-01-14 23:53|| 2010-01-14 23:53|| Front Page Top

#19 Pappy, I look at this as a separate, new /military specialty kind of like paratroopers or tank drivers. Is that a reasonable metaphor?

My real question though is "What law are they supposed to be inforcing?" Is this group to enforce "Int'l law", local law, US law or what?

One of the biggest cultural differences is embodied in a cultures views on law. I am more than a little skeptical about the quality of the "rule book" that our folks would be intended to enforce.

Posted by AlanC 2010-01-15 07:58|| 2010-01-15 07:58|| Front Page Top

#20 Sorry, smells like a hybrid US State Department or flakey UN operation less the authority of the regional Combatant Commander (former CINCs) to me. I believe Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) has the rose pinned on them to stand up emergency or stability operation task forces under organizations such as their Joint Enabling Capabilities Command, Joint Task Force Horn of Africa and others.

If it isn't broken, why are we rushing to fix it with a $637.3 million annual budget?

Posted by Besoeker 2010-01-15 08:10|| 2010-01-15 08:10|| Front Page Top

#21 Pappy, I look at this as a separate, new /military specialty kind of like paratroopers or tank drivers. Is that a reasonable metaphor?

The study mentioned a list of options, then appeared to advocate either a new military specialty who, among other options, may be seconded to state and local police to gain experience, police officers recruited and trained by an SPF, and then seconded to state and local police until called upon, or volunteer police officers formed into a reserve force and drawn upon.

My real question though is "What law are they supposed to be inforcing?" Is this group to enforce "Int'l law", local law, US law or what?

I'm not sure. Once would have to look at Kosovo. A'stan or Iraq for what gets enforced. Probably (WAG here)a combination of local, international and whatever laws are agreed upon by the senior commander (nee CinC) in charge. I think it might be local police enforcing their laws, with outside police forces assisting and targeting areas beyond the capabilities of local forces , as well as training and if needed, establishing local police forces.

Sorry, smells like a hybrid US State Department or flakey UN operation less the authority of the regional Combatant Commander (former CINCs) to me.

"The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States
Army under Contract No. W74V8H-06-C-0001" is what reads on page 4 of the report. Hardly a State Department plot.

I believe Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) has the rose pinned on them to stand up emergency or stability operation task forces under organizations such as their Joint Enabling Capabilities Command, Joint Task Force Horn of Africa and others.

Yes, and as I recall, that often means bringing in contractors (you of all know that) and personnel from other agencies if required. Smells like the Army isn't all that keen on having its troops play Sheriff Andy (with all that that implies).

To repeat something I said in the O'Club: It isn't just security, patrolling and ops in bad logistical areas. It's also dealing with smugglers, organized crime, black markets, and general criminal activity that breeds when there isn't a civil law-enforcement structure. It's also recruiting, screening, and training street officers, detention personnel, and administrators, setting up or re-establishing police facilities, jails, support and maintenance, communications networks, logistics, and finance (especially pay).

Second, the constabulary units worked quite well and are to me a viable option. The problem now is there really isn't an Army or Marine unit available to do the duty. The system, if not broken, is certainly damaged. Unless Congress raises troop levels, or the scope of missions are reduced, or there's a fundamental change in mindset by the Pentagon, it isn't 'unthinkable' to look at other options.

And if you want a really fun problem to chew on - think 'collapse in Mexico".

Posted by Pappy 2010-01-15 09:30|| 2010-01-15 09:30|| Front Page Top

#22 And if you want a really fun problem to chew on -think 'collapse in Mexico". Pappy

Can do easy.

a. Close the border good and proper.
b. Stay home and stay the phuech out of it.
c. Let them fight it out azteca.
d. Rinse and repeat globally.

Next question please.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-01-15 09:48|| 2010-01-15 09:48|| Front Page Top

#23 Pappy, as an aside, the issue of an internal intervention has a peculiar background, involving the issue of US constitutional "nullification".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

The SCOTUS has ruled that US congressional actions are superior to State legislature actions. It has also ruled that the decisions of federal judges are superior to State judges. However, they have *never* ruled that the decisions of the POTUS is superior to that of State governors.

But this means that all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion, Andrew Jackson's threat to hang any "nullifier" in South Carolina after they had voted to nullify one of his tariffs, the US Civil War, etc., etc., has never been resolved as to its legality.

This was most recently the issue between W. Bush and the governor of Louisiana, when Bush wanted to relieve New Orleans, but the governor dithered.

And perhaps this is the underlying issue. As with Obama's desire to create a "council of governors", there is deep suspicion that it is a power grab by the POTUS, who would justify intervention in a State by saying that a "council" of governors from other States thought it was a good idea, even if the governor of that State said "No!"

Unless the SCOTUS clearly and definitively prohibits a POTUS from sending the army, or whatever force, into an uncooperative State, the only thing holding him back right now is political pressure. Using a council of governors to try and alleviate that is just rude.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-01-15 09:53|| 2010-01-15 09:53|| Front Page Top

#24 1) ...criminal activity that breeds when there isn't a civil law-enforcement structure.

Pappy, it's not just a civil law-enforcement structure that's missing in most all of these cases, it is a civil law structure. This was the nub of my previous question. What law is enforced if there is no law defined?

2) 'moose asks good questions. I'd just like to add...the only thing holding him back right now is political pressure and a well armed citizenry.

Posted by AlanC 2010-01-15 10:13|| 2010-01-15 10:13|| Front Page Top

#25 I was with the skeptics, bogged down on the OCONUS/ICONUS issue (or trying to learn to whistle and failing), until Pappy's comment made things clear for me:

And if you want a really fun problem to chew on - think 'collapse in Mexico".

Mexico is a failing state. Mexico's political and moral collapse, and the tsunami of illegals Mexico's corruption, incompetence and sheer cynicism are sending our way, are helping our southwestern states down the path of first fiscal failure and possibly future civil failure as well.

When California becomes Mexifornia, the distinction between inside and outside the continental US vanishes.

Take it away, Pappy. Tell us more. I'm stuck in California and want to know. Thanks in advance,
L

Posted by lex 2010-01-15 10:29|| 2010-01-15 10:29|| Front Page Top

#26 #22 And if you want a really fun problem to chew on -think 'collapse in Mexico". Pappy

Besoeker: Can do easy.

No can do, Besoeker. Tweedledum wants a lock on cheap labor for its sweatshop owner business bloc. Tweedledee wants a lock on the latino vote.

And both parties' fanboys in the press and punditry, from the NYT editors all the way to Michael Barone, scream "racist!" at anyone who dares call BS on this corrupt bargain that achieves each party's aims-- even as it depletes CA's and other states' treasuries, destroys the public schools, ruins social services and fills the prisons to overflowing.

Posted by lex 2010-01-15 10:36|| 2010-01-15 10:36|| Front Page Top

#27 And Mexico won't be the last one, either. The entire post-WWII nation state structure is eroding fast. Those who think we can simply build high walls and keep the chaos out might want to check into our economic dependency on commodities we don't have CONUS (and I mean don't have, not 'won't use'), the state of our sovereign debt and the lack of science and engineering skills in our workforce under 40 yrs of age or so.

Or for the short version, recall Canute and the sea.

Posted by lotp 2010-01-15 10:59|| 2010-01-15 10:59|| Front Page Top

#28 A return to the island Agri-America. Americans love a challenge. Bring it on! Let the rest FOAD, they hate us anyway.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-01-15 11:02|| 2010-01-15 11:02|| Front Page Top

#29 Better start breeding plow horses fast, then, and figuring out how you're going to defend those high walls without batteries and night sights for the military.

Or go Amish pacifist. Harder, but doable.

Meanwhile, outside of fantasy land ....

Posted by lotp 2010-01-15 11:16|| 2010-01-15 11:16|| Front Page Top

#30 lotp, if we don't drop our religious objections to making our own batteries and night vision sights then all the stability police force is doing is robbing Peter to pay Paul to stretch out the conquest of the US by another two weeks.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-01-15 13:05|| 2010-01-15 13:05|| Front Page Top

#31 A return to the island Agri-America.

Agri products we have aplenty, even before you and I dig Victory Gardens in the front lawn -- we're still the breadbasket of the world, unless things have changed significantly since last I looked. It's the rare earth metals that China is strip-mining in Tibet that should be more a matter of concern.

Thought: could those be refined from coal mine tailings? Or coal ash?

Posted by trailing wife 2010-01-15 13:41|| 2010-01-15 13:41|| Front Page Top

#32 if we don't drop our religious objections to making our own batteries and night vision sights ... You didn't get the part about "don't have", then.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-01-15 13:42|| 2010-01-15 13:42|| Front Page Top

#33 Agri products we have aplenty most of which depend on a continuing supply of imported petro, from places like Mexico. There is no easy or quick way to change that dependency. Drilling everywhere, even if it should succeed (which is doubtful IMHO), would take years to make a difference.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-01-15 13:47|| 2010-01-15 13:47|| Front Page Top

#34 We have mines here for rare earths; they were closed in the 90's when it was easier to buy in bulk from China (which was dumping on the market) than to deal with more regulations.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-01-15 14:02|| 2010-01-15 14:02|| Front Page Top

#35 Having read the intro and pages Pappy referenced I am still confused by how this force would be used by this language:

Of the options considered, this research indicates that the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) would be the most likely to successfully field an SPF, under the assumptions that an MP option would not be permitted to conduct policing missions in the United States outside of military installations except under extraordinary circumstances, and that doing so is essential to maintaining required skills. ... The MP Corps has the opposite problem: it has the capacity to take on the task, and arguably it has the skills due to its efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, its ability to maintain these skills during periods when it is not engaged in large-scale stability operations is constrained by the limits placed on its ability to perform civilian policing functions by the Posse Comitatus Act.

This seems to contemplate the SPF being used domestically when not occupied elsewhere. I don't like POTUS having such a force unless he's ready to declare martial law and nationalize the National Guard or send in active Army. It's very unclear why making it part of the MP would not work except for the domestic considerations. They would probably be useful tomorrow in Haiti if we had them.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-01-15 15:57|| 2010-01-15 15:57|| Front Page Top

#36 Nimble Spemble: I suspect they want something that'll be free to do military occupation duties but won't be subject to the UCMJ.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-01-15 17:00|| 2010-01-15 17:00|| Front Page Top

#37 The country needs something, and the aristocracy wants to make sure the country's needs turns into their path to consolidating power.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-01-15 17:00|| 2010-01-15 17:00|| Front Page Top

#38 Otherwise they'd actually deal with the situation by expanding the military.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-01-15 17:01|| 2010-01-15 17:01|| Front Page Top

#39 Think about last year's banking crisis; we did need some sort of macroeconomic intervention, and the usual suspects took advantage of that need to really screw us over. Same situation, and roughly the same people in charge. The Beheres.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-01-15 17:05|| 2010-01-15 17:05|| Front Page Top

#40 This seems to contemplate the SPF being used domestically when not occupied elsewhere.

Yes - and is something I said repeatedly that I'm not comfortable with.

Posted by Pappy 2010-01-15 19:23|| 2010-01-15 19:23|| Front Page Top

#41 from a layman's point if view, it sounds like you're describing the FBI?
(Or what the FBI Is supposed to be, an overriding Police force with every other force under it)

Posted by Redneck Jim 2010-01-15 20:30|| 2010-01-15 20:30|| Front Page Top

#42 Thanks, Pappy. I think we're converging. But what I read was, There is, IMNSHO, a need for something along those lines. And what I was saying was that I was having a hard time seeing the need for it domestically. And I suspect now you agree with that.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-01-15 20:58|| 2010-01-15 20:58|| Front Page Top

#43 Frankly, the title of the post is misleading. The study is for an OCONUS SPF. I see a need for an OCONUS SPF of some type.

My concern is with Rand's author's advocating emplacing SPF members in state and local police forces until the need arises. I can partly understand why they want to do so: so that the officers' learn and retain policing skills (which unlike the military, are really learned in an apprenticeship environment). But it also becomes a concern as to which master is being served.

From a layman's point if view, it sounds like you're describing the FBI?

Not really. The FBI has always held itself above 'street-policing', though the technical capabilities would be a valuable asset.

Posted by Pappy 2010-01-15 21:56|| 2010-01-15 21:56|| Front Page Top

23:38 JosephMendiola
23:34 JosephMendiola
23:30 Frank G
23:30 Solomon Spogum5839
23:28 Shusosh Munster9894
23:22 3dc
23:21 JosephMendiola
23:19 Barbara Skolaut
23:16 Barbara Skolaut
23:15 Barbara Skolaut
23:13 JosephMendiola
23:13 Rambler in Virginia
23:11 Procopius2k
23:07 JosephMendiola
23:04 GirlThursday
23:01 Richard Aubrey
23:01 JosephMendiola
22:54 Frank G
22:42 Mullah Richard
22:37 Redneck Jim
22:29 JosephMendiola
22:26 JosephMendiola
22:18 Solomon Spogum5839
22:16 Solomon Spogum5839