Transitional Public Security is the military forces’ establish-
ment, promotion, restoration and maintenance of public order.
The purpose of TPS is to protect the civilian population from
violence when the rule of law has broken down or no longer
exists. Public order is a condition in which there is an absence
of wide-spread criminal and political violence. Without public
order, people cannot conduct their daily lives without fear of
violence. TPS sets the conditions that allows public order
management to transition from military to civilian
implementation.
TPS bridges the gap between short-term requirements and
long-term development goals as it focuses on addressing the
immediate challenges to maintaining public order by lever-
aging the planning expertise of civilian development actors.
These civilian planners ensure immediate needs are consistent
with long-term development and that military forces “do no
harm” to partner capacity goals and legitimacy. Because many
transitional public security tasks are often done by police in
more secure environments, early interventions will “set the
tone” for future police organizational structures, staffing,
policies and tactics. Thus, police expertise is critical in the earli-
est days of intervention to allow for a more seamless transition
from military to civilian actors.
TPS is a doctrinal concept and impending policy recognizes
it as being the primary stability role of military forces. In this
light, our working group looked at how we might develop a
cogent and consistent Department of Defense approach that
is complementary to Joint, Interorganizational, Multinational
(JIM) partners’ efforts.
LTG McMaster graciously let us borrow COL Robert Dillon,
TRADOC ARCIC, to lead Group 4 as COL Dillon has a
wealth of expertise and experience in policing and stability
operations, while also addressing the stability policing gap in his
own academic pursuits. The work group consisted of personnel
from State (INL, CSO), JCISFA, SIGAR, TRADOC, HQDA
PMG, 351st CA CMD, PKSOI, 4th Infantry Division, Safer-
world, and JCMI/UNCG.
The participants received an overview of TPS construct and
previously completed products and tasks to level the knowledge
gap for everyone. The work group was then divided into three
Workgroup 4 lead Colonel Rob Dillon
sub-groups that looked at TPS strategies and tactics in order to
consolidate operational gains; define the breadth of key TPS
stakeholders; and identify doctrine, organization, training,
materiel, logistics, personnel, facilities, policy (DOTMLPF-P)
considerations.
Mr. Keith Smith, JD ( JCISFA), Mr. Scott Braderman (PKSOI),
and Dr. Karen Finkenbinder (PKSOI) were subgroup leaders.
Additionally, several planners (operational and strategic)
permeated the sub-WGs, as invaluable resource! A guided
brainstorming technique called “starbursting” was used to
arrive at each groups’ recommendations. This technique is
known for gaining everyone’s participation and for bringing out
issues that may not otherwise be known. The technique
engenders participation – as evidenced by many lively and
heartfelt exchanges!
Discussions were as followed:
Strategic Gap. An overall absence of concepts, policies and
strategies for post conflict environments has created a strategic
gap in consolidating political and military gains.
Multiple Stakeholders create complexity. These complex
stability environments require multiple actors to establish
basic levels of security and safety, requiring an iterative process
to, as fast as feasibly possible, move out of military dominated
control and transition to sustainable civil policing and safety.
17