MP´s didn´t pay for whores in NAM?
In the scene where two of the guys are in the bath at the whorehouse one of the girls says that military police never pays...did that really happen?.
shareI'm sure it did. They could put in teh word to have teh place put down as "off limits" for servicemen. Even though your average MP in teh field couldn't, it was a threat not to be taken lightly were they to pass it up the chain of command.
BL
Anyway, MP's are not even real soldiers
--------------------------------
*We got bookoo movement *
--------------------------------
MP's very often do the same work as an infantryman.
War does not decide who is right, war decides who is left.
It's not that MPs do the work of infantrymen; it's the other way around. Infantrymen today, in addition to having the responsibility of conducting typical infantry-type missions, are now doing the traditional work of Military Police (arresting/detaining/guarding prisoners, searching civilians, maintaining base security, etc.) as well as performing the jobs usually done by combat engineers, e.g., EOD-type missions like detecting and disposing of IEDs, disposing of UXOs, etc.
shareThanks for your answers!.
>>>Anyway, MP's are not even real soldiers
What does it matter if they can have whores for free?. :-P
MP's take alot of crap, and do make arbirtrary BS calls and abuse their authority--like anyone else will occasionally/rarely do when they have power.
However, MP's not real soldiers? What about the MP's and Air Force SP's guarding TSN during Tet? Or the ones escorting convoys down the highways?
Or WWII holding crossroads against the Germans during the Bulge?
Iraq? MP's are doing the SAME JOBS and Infantry. I bet they are taking a disproportionate number of casualties to their number too.
BradLaGrange
Well said, they are. We lost 6 in a particularly nasty event!
I have no morals, but I'm a very moral person. (Voltair)
"Or WWII [MPs] holding crossroads against the Germans during the Bulge?"
FYI, those "MPs" weren't even American G.Is. They were German imposters dressed in stolen G.I. uniforms, specially selected by Otto Skorzeny -- who headed Hitler's covert and special operations -- from the ranks of the Waffen SS and the Wehrmacht for their English-language skills for behind-the-lines sabotage during "Operation Greif" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Greif. These Germans were dropped behind American lines dressed as American MPs in order to wreak havoc and confusion among U.S. forces, particularly at road intersections and crossroads in order to issue wrong orders and directions that would confuse the U.S. Army. share
MPs are definitely soldiers. However, their training and missions are actually "Combat Support", i.e., in the big picture, they do not gain territory, conduct full spectrum combat operations, nor do they operate at the tip of the spear.
Their mission is literally to support ongoing, in-situ combat operations by providing security for prisoners, rear areas -- if any -- as well as provide security for support facilities like HQ, Combat Support Hospitals (CSHs), supply depots, transportation hubs, logistical convoys, etc.
Unfortunately, however, due to the assymetrical nature of the warfare U.S. forces are currently finding themselves in Iraq and now the counterinsurgency-type operations Afghanistan, there are no clear "front" lines or "rear" areas anymore, which means that the infantry must now be able to perform the full-spectrum of combat support missions typically consigned to their combat support brethren like Military Police, as well as take on additional combat skills such as Combat Engineers when it comes to doing necessary things like road clearance and IED and UXO detection/removal.
So in other words, it isn't that our MPs are taking on infantry-type combat missions -- au contraire, our infantry has had take on MP-type missions and Engineer type missions, as well as acquire the necessary skill sets, just to be effective in places like Afghanistan.
You could just as well say that clerks, supply personnel, corpsmen and communications etc. aren't real soldiers. Not everybody is on front line duty, in fact it was said that for every person on the front line there are 8 people backing him up.
share"Not everybody is on front line duty,..."
True, but not every war has a "front line" per se. The "front line" vs. rear echelon distinction is a false dichotomy in today's assymetrical battlespace, as such traditional definitions and distinctions have become less and less applicable. Consider Afghanistan where the U.S. has been fighting an insurgency, i.e., conducting counterinsurgency operations (COIN ops) against a basically guerilla force. In Afghanistan, where there are no front lines, the threat can come from anyone (civilian insurgents) and/or anywhere (IEDs/attacks on coalition bases/traditional ambushes utilizing typical hit-and-run tactics).
That said, in a 360 degree, assymetrical threat environment -- where there is no clearly defined front-line or rear area -- anyone or everyone can be the enemy attacking from anywhere, anytime, meaning that everyone serving in Afghanistan -- while they may not necessarily be a soldier at the tip of the spear -- are serving in a combat situation under threat of open hostilities at any time in some form. This, however, is the nature of and the typical scenario posed in low-intensity conflicts that the U.S. military started training for concurrently with their cold-war mission as early as the late 80s -- particularly with the renewed emphasis on deploying light infantry, airborne/airmobile and Special Forces as Rapid Deployment Forces quickly to quell threats of a limited or undefined nature in a low-intensity conflict scenario.
In addition, the low-intensity threats of today have required that today's counterinsurgency forces -- serving in both conventional and unconventional formations -- acquire a wider range of not just combat skills, but also combat support and service support skill-sets that will enable individuals and units to conduct full-spectrum combat operations to achieve their objectives.
So instead of an infantry platoon limited to conducting kinetic operations day after day, or constantly drilling in basic soldier skills over and over again, we need infantrymen with a broader range of training to adjust to the realities of today's warfare. That means having riflemen trained to perform missions with skillsets typically found in MPs, EOD specialists, Civil Affairs specialists, Linguists, Commo and Intel specialists, Admin and Personnel specialists, etc. Such "unconventional warfare tactics and training" should no longer be considered the province and realm of Special Forces. It is the new kind of warfare that every soldier must be prepared to engage in -- that means having soldiers trained and cross-trained in multi-disciplinary skill sets so they can serve in units that can adjust their tactics and procedures to accommodate the situation and scenario, and ultimately achieve their objectives in the most efficient and least costly way as possible. share