Base Security question - where are all the MPs?

I have been to some bases (Patrick AFB in Florida, Ramey AFB in Aguadilla, PR and the Washington DC Navy Yard and Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn NYC) and there was not a single MP anywhere to be found and there are civilian security guards manning the gates and vehicles saying "Patrick AFB Police" or "Rafael Hernandez Airport/Ramey AFB Security Police" driving around again driven by what looked to be civilian hired security guards but no USAF Security Police. In this day and age with the threat of terrorism I am shocked that there were no MPs at the gate with M16s. When I went to the US Navy museum at the Washington Navy Yard a US Marine only checked us as we were leaving the base and he dident even have a visible weapon.

What happened to all the US Army and USMC MPs, USAF Security Police and US Navy MAA ratings and Shore Patrol?

Gate security is handled by civilian contractors, with base security handled by the Military Police. It frees up the MPs to handle security around the flightlines, or the ships, or equipment on the base, as well as around the housing areas. Most of the MPs that rove the bases are only armed with a 9mm pistol, while the ones that secure the equipment are armed with M16s as well as a 9mm. For some of the larger bases, having civilian contractors on the gates frees up as many as 30 MPs per shift.

I believe the reason there are civilian contractors working the gates and patrols is because we need SPs to deploy. With civilians taking over the majority of security forces' duties stateside, that opens up a lot of security forces members to deploy.

Thanks for the answers, I kind of figured that Iraq and Afghanistan had something to do with the increased use of civilian security guards.

Im just concerned that their training and weapon access is not as good the military cops have. Im just afraid of the level of security, after 9/11 and whatnot we should be increasing it not decreasing it by using more civilian guards who may or may not be armed and if they are armed most would just have pistols right?

Originally posted by ChrisF231
Thanks for the answers, I kind of figured that Iraq and Afghanistan had something to do with the increased use of civilian security guards.

Im just concerned that their training and weapon access is not as good the military cops have. Im just afraid of the level of security, after 9/11 and whatnot we should be increasing it not decreasing it by using more civilian guards who may or may not be armed and if they are armed most would just have pistols right?

You are so right. They are not the same as specialized authentic MP's.
Not even close to the scrutiny nor training/testing that is involved in US military programs.
This explains much of our "gone missing" equip and weapons.
Not good and as an Ex Marine Corps MP this bothers me very very much.
Also being a security worker after the Military gives me even more reason to shutter.

[edit on 22-7-2007 by VType]

[edit on 22-7-2007 by VType]

Even if they were SPs, they'd only be armed with pistols. Gate guards only had M16s under certain conditions. The only real difference is that SPs were military and current gate guards aren't. They go through extensive background checks and other certifications before they can work the gates. The military SPs can respond quickly if anything happens at the gate. Most bases also have passive defenses at the gates that can be activated quickly. Pop up barricades, and the like are around most gates now.

We will have to see how this pans out Zap. However Security for the past 5 plus years and sensitive locals has been a ever descending story and sadly.
Yes during times of War I can see the need for MP's in Iraq and abroad. But to have such sensitive places primarily guarded my some less stringent than Military corporations and some with head offices over seas is just crazy and asking for lots of grief.
www.spfpa.org...

Would you rather have our friend from Akal Secuity guarding the Armory/silo/munitions bunker/fighter/etc...?





Id rather have what has worked for so well for so long myself pictured below. And the beauty is their cost is Allready in the Military budget. And at probably a 1/2 or less of what the same security guard costs.

So true Vtype and unfortunately it will take a tragedy like this Fort Dix plot to actually occur for the policy makers to realize the error of their ways in regards to contract security guards vs service police staffed by military personnel.

If this was a perfect world Chris it would be the contractors for hire over there earning that oil protection money rather than the US's own Security force called the Military protecting large corporate assets abroad.
Crazy isnt it?

Originally posted by VType
If this was a perfect world Chris it would be the contractors for hire over there earning that oil protection money rather than the US's own Security force called the Military protecting large corporate assets abroad.
Crazy isnt it?

Good point.


There is nothing wrong with contract security manning the gates. They probably do a better job than some e-2 private who doesnt want to be there. They get paid, on average, $20+ per hour compared to the average private security officer, in my area abour $9 for unarmed and 11 for armed., so they are generaly motivated and want to keep their jobs.

Also, they must pass a physical fitness test and background check and probably 99% of them are prior service.

It is often used as a job to help military members transition out of the service.

The picture of the Akal guy at an airport was crap, they have much different hiring standards for military posts.

In fact, here are some of the standards for Army Posts


external link[

Must be able to pass a stringent credit and background check
Must be able to pass a stringent physical
Must be able to pass a physical fitness test to include:
Up thru age 50 - 1 mile run in less than 12:30 minutes; 9 push-ups in 2 minutes; 20 sit-ups in 2 minutes
Age 51 up thru age 59 - 1 mile run in 20:00 minutes
Age 60 and above - 1.5 mile walk in 30:00 minutes

I know these PT numbers are way low, but go check out the local mall security officer (average wight: 300 lbs, average age 300 yrs old) and see if you think they could do it.




[edit on 22-7-2007 by cavscout]

here where i am....they give the reason for civilians taking over is so that airmen can be ready to deploy.....

also the Security forces here, only carry m-16's if they couldnt get qualified in the m-9...

and what really ticks me off is that Security Forces still task our squadrons for help with the gates in the morning...even tho they have all the civilians and free guys....

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
and what really ticks me off is that Security Forces still task our squadrons for help with the gates in the morning...even tho they have all the civilians and free guys....

I hate that #.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the use of civilian security companies at US military installations started in 1985. It has nothing to do with the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The main issue in this is cost. Untill 1985 the Marines provided gate security at most Navy instalations, but in order to cut costs it was determined to issue contracts to civilian companies. This allowed the Marine detachments at these installations to be reduced. Marines still provide security on weapons storage areas and high security facilities on these installations.

Here in Korea we have uniformed civilian security guards, they seem to wear BDU's or a ROK uniform, they are armed with a pistol (I can't indentify it but the grip looks similar to the Makarov).

MP's are generally keeping us GI's in check in the recreational areas outside of town making sure we don't do anything stupid or illegal.

When I was an MP in Army I remember being issued 1 15 round mag for my M9/9mm and I wasn’t allowed to chamber a round. To add to this we had the old suicide holsters with a flap. This is when we conducted law enforcement on Ft. Bragg. Other than combat I can’t remember a time when we were allowed to carry loaded weapons. I remember one time in Panama where we put empty mags into our M16A2’s so it look liked it was loaded and we carried the full mag in our cargo pants, what a joke. And they never trained you to do a tactical load under stressful conditions.

After I got out of the Army I was surprised to find out that I would carry a loaded weapon as a civilian cop. And to this day I carry a fully loaded weapon every where I go.

So I don’t have a problem with a civilian on the gate, at least the DOD cops and private security carry loaded weapons.

When I was on Ft. Bragg in the early to mid 90’s there was a civilian guard force that carried loaded 9mm and 12 gauge shotguns. These civilians guarded the Delta Force Compound and the ASP/ammo supply point. I was so envious that they carried loaded weapons.

Heck, here in Florida private security companies guard our fossil fuel and nuclear power plants and they carry a loaded handguns and a loaded AR15 with 6 loaded mags.

www.cisworldservices.org...

Isn’t it funny how the government does things?

reply to post by Jasestrong2


This issue goes way back. When I was in the Navy in the early 1970's it was civilian guards only both at Great Lakes and the Naval Air Station where I was assigned. Everybody called them 'rent-a-cops' and didn't have too much respect for them. I noticed one day that the guards at the NAS were no longer wearing revolvers...not even at the gate. Later I happened to be talking to one of the guards - he was retired military and wore strips on his sleeve indicating he was a supervisor. He was also wearing a gun. I asked why the vast majority of guards were unarmed. He said an incident had occured where one of the guards had been surrounded by a number of nonwhite sailers threatening him. He drew his gun....but apparently didn't have to use it. But as a politically correct result all guards were disarmed except for the supervisors. Things are worse now unfortunately To even talk about this is considered racism. Nevertheless it is the truth. Much has to be yet written about the total break down of discipline in the military at that time. And I don't mean to say that it was just the nonwhite personnel. Far from it.

Other than the attack from the air on the Pentagon,can anyone tell me of a recent,or past attack on a stateside military base?The Fort Dix plot was just that a plot that never happened.The most recent incident in memory was where a army soldier lost it and shot up a group during PT.

If I was to be concerned it would be at malls,sporting events,concerts or other soft targets, which has happened recently.

reply to post by Jasestrong2


USAF Security Forces always had 1 in the pipe on their M-9's and a loaded mag in their rifle....we used to make fun of the Army national guardsmen that were augmented to us because they couldn't carry a loaded weapon.




And the base I was stationed at the longest "Minot AFB" hired civvies for gate security post 9-11 so the Security Forces can focus on the global war on terror deployments.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by Disinfo Agent1966]