Category: Military issues

The Washington Post‘s editorial board unsurprisingly writes this morning that the troops don’t need to be armed on their bases, which are now gun free zones. The only people on military bases who are armed are the sparse law enforcement personnel and people who don’t bother to obey the law – people like Nidal Hasan and Ivan Lopez, the Fort Hood shooters. The Pentagon concurs with the Post’s opinion. You know the Pentagon, which is surrounded by well-armed guards.

The Defense Department has considered, twice, whether putting more guns in the hands of on-base personnel would make its facilities safer: after the 2009 Fort Hood shooting and after last year’s Washington Navy Yard massacre. Both times, Defense Department spokesman Damien Pickart said, the Pentagon declined to change policy, deciding that arming more people on base would pose safety problems and that the military would have to provide a lot of additional, costly weapons training.

One major concern is that disagreements inevitably arise among co-workers, whether soldier or civilian; base commanders should not want to make it easier for escalating fights to turn deadly. Another is that even well-meaning people can miss with a shot or accidentally discharge a weapon. “Even in the military, there’s varying levels of training and capability at using weapons,” Steve Bucci, a Heritage Foundation analyst and former Army commander, told the Christian Science Monitor. Both are reasons for a clear delegation of on-base safety to people who are on duty and trained to provide close-quarters security outside of a battlefield context.

Of course, we’re talking about the same Pentagon that was perfectly willing to sacrifice American lives for the sake of appearances in Afghanistan, when there was a spike in “green-on-blue” attacks there. It took about 60 deaths of US troops who were killed by our “allies” because the perfumed princes of Arlington thought that arming the troops in front of Afghans would insult them. So who is really surprised that the current crop of so-called leaders doesn’t want American troops to be able to protect themselves in their own country when they wouldn’t let them protect themselves in a combat zone for appearances sake?

That bullshit about escalating disagreements is a strawman. The troops disagree with each other in combat without shooting one another. However, I remember a few years back when armed contracted civilian gate guards at the old Walter Reed had a shootout over a disagreement about a woman.

If the military is promoting people to Sergeant rank who they don’t trust with firearms, maybe they need to take a look at their criteria for those promotions. In combat, those sergeants have the fire power equal to an entire World War II platoon, but the Pentagon won’t let those same sergeants have a handgun to protect the health and welfare of their troops in garrison?

Or maybe, they should stop promoting hand-wringing pussies to flag ranks, leaders who have faith in the lower ranks. But, like I said, they’re ensconced in layers of armed security at the Puzzle Palace and that’s all that counts.

I understand why the Post would be against more armed people on military bases, I know why they hate the troops, but why do the troops’ leaders in the Pentagon hate the troops and want more of them dead?

Most Americans cherish their freedoms.  Indeed, many – even many serving in our military – take those freedoms for granted.

Those freedoms aren’t enjoyed everywhere, though.  Anyone needing a reminder can just look north.  Here’s what Canada requires of their wounded military personnel:

Wounded Canadian troops are required to sign an agreement that prohibits them from criticizing their superior officers or how they are being treated, Canada’s The National Post newspaper is reporting.

Freedom of speech, meet Canada.  Apparently you’re not exactly welcome there.

 

Fox News reports that the Army says that Ivan Lopez, the latest Fort Hood shooter was denied a leave request and that’s what pushed him over the edge to kill Sgt. Timothy Owens, of Illinois; Staff Sgt. Carlos Lazaney Rodriguez, 38, of Aguadilla, Puerto Rico and Sgt. 1st Class Daniel Ferguson, 39, of Florida and injure 16 others. I’m guessing that he knew it would be denied for some reason because 1) he bought the gun just days earlier, and 2) he took the gun to work with him to confront his leadership. After he killed one and injured 10 others following a verbal altercation, he got in his car and started shooting at people along his route;

As he drove, he fired his weapon at two soldiers, wounding one, Grey said. After reaching another building, to which he had been assigned, he shot one soldier, who later died, and then wounded two more soldiers. At one point, he fired at the windshield of an occupied car, wounding a soldier, then proceeded to a medical building, where he shot and killed a soldier at desk and wounded another person.

Fort Hood investigators say they found more than 35 shell casings along his route.

When he encountered a Fort Hood Military Police officer who had responded to the shooting, Lopez had a verbal exchange with her, Grey previously said. The officer fired a shot at him that missed, and then Lopez put his gun to his head and killed himself.

So, a good gal with a gun stopped him, it was pretty brave of her to do her job and face a guy who’d just shot a score of people all by her lonesome, so I won’t judge her by her missed shot. I wasn’t there, and I’ve never been in the situation. So, I’ll just compliment her for now.

I did get mad once when the company clerk wouldn’t give me a DA Form 31 (Request for leave) because he only had one form left. I’m sure Lopez knew his request would be denied, for some reason.

Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen told the folks at “Meet the Press” yesterday that he opposes arming the troops when they’re at work on military bases. This is not my shocked face. Mullen has a history of taking the emotion-based politically correct position on most common sense issues.

Mullen said that he thinks the best way to assure safer bases is to focus on the mental health of soldiers returning from war.

“I’m not one, as someone who’s been on many, many bases and posts, that would argue for arming anybody that’s on base.”

But Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said on “Fox News Sunday” that — if more armed personnel could lead to safer bases — he would be in support of officials carrying guns on U.S. military installations.

He added that “across-the-board cuts” would have negative effects on security and mental health services, Kaine added.

Yeah, when you’re taking the liberal stance on an issue while a Democrat takes the common sense approach, maybe it’s time to re-examine your position. While I agree that the improvement of healthcare for soldiers should be a priority, that has nothing to do with this issue. Improved healthcare wouldn’t have helped Lopez – the attack was planned; he bought the weapon days before the attack and took the weapon on post with him with a clear intent to use it that day.

Since it’s been mandated that the troops can’t take weapons to work, it exposes them to criminals and terrorists. Anyone who has tried to go to work on Fort Bragg through the Yadkin Road gate knows what I’m talking about. A mile of traffic stalled along a road through pine barrens. The last time I did that was probably more than 20 years ago, no telling what traffic is like along there now. But my point is that there are hundreds of unarmed soldiers going to work with no place to hide from a well-planned ambush, or even a half-assed planned ambush and no way to protect themselves.

There’s no way that gate guards can check every vehicle for hidden weapons as hundreds, if not thousands of troops are passing through the gates, so the only people who are going to be tempted to bring their weapons on post are those who do so with ill-intent.

Mullen has never really been interested in the health of the force, mostly he bows and scrapes to his political masters. You’d think that now that he’s retired, he’d stop the kowtowing, but old habits die hard, I suppose.

If we can’t trust the troops to carry their weapons legally, why do we even have a military? Just more emotional bullshit. I don’t see any reason why anyone above the rank of E-4, who is legally licensed to carry a concealed weapon off-post can’t legally carry one on post as well. What’s the message that the troops are receiving from their leadership when hand-wringing pansies like Mullen make these proclamations?

Geetwillickers, Dominick and Sporkmaster send us a link to an interview on CNN’s Brooke Baldwin in which they interview a disgruntled soldier. She says that Fort Hood is a “black hole”, whatever that means. She’s been on Fort Hood for four whole months and she says that inmates in prison have it better than soldiers on Fort Hood.

She added that base officials and military personnel in the Pentagon should be more focused on the quality of life soldiers have at Ft. Hood. “We lose our sanity knowing that we don’t get paid enough to work as much as we do,” the solider continued. “I could be flipping burgers right now and make more money.”

If she’s an E-3 with less than 2 years of service, she makes about $11.30/hour, $21,000/year. I think that’s a little bit better than what she’d earn “flipping burgers”. I didn’t like my time at Fort Hood, either, but it was because I wanted to be light infantry and there wasn’t any light infantry at Hood when I was there. But, it was the only place I was stationed where I could take my fishing poles to work and hit the lake after duty hours. They had a great recreation area. Hood was about an hour from Waco and Austin – you know, the big city for night life.

She says that she doesn’t blame Ivan Lopez for going on a shooting spree because Fort Hood made him nuts. Yeah, well, thousands, if not millions of us have been stationed at Hood without going on a shooting spree. The military should seek out this complaining private and check her out for her predisposition to go on a shooting spree.

She says that she’s a “military brat”, but I guess she was unconscious most of her life. Oh, and by the way, CNN probably had to really work to find someone as stupid as this woman. She has about as much useful information to add to the discussion as if they had interviewed Sponge Bob about life at Fort Hood.

Heading home… But keep thinking about this young solider. Have close family in military but this… frightened me: http://t.co/Ho1yoYY0s5

— Brooke Baldwin (@BrookeBCNN) April 3, 2014

We hear a lot of talk about shooters targeting gun-free zones. The concept of a gun-free zone in the United States is absurd, although, I don’t know if they are specifically “targeting” these places. The carnage is escalated, sadly, due to the absence of someone prepared to confront an active shooter. Is it the same on military facilities? It isn’t really a gun free zone.  Is the idea of a fully armed military installation reasonable? This is a knee jerk response and isn’t a legitimate plan to stop armed intruders. According to Fox:

Lawmakers, as well as survivors of the 2009 shooting, claim he could have been stopped sooner if others on base had their weapons by their side.
“When our soldiers are unarmed, they will find themselves in a situation like yesterday and in 2009,” Sgt. Howard Ray, a survivor of the 2009 mass shooting in which 13 people were killed, told Fox News.
One source who was at the scene when the Fort Hood lockdown was ordered Wednesday also raised concerns about current DOD policy.
“When will they allow those who have concealed weapon permits to carry them on post?” the individual told Fox News. “We don’t have a way to protect ourselves. … We are all hostages on post.”
Military installations largely do not allow soldiers to be armed or carry personal firearms while on post, except for law enforcement and security personnel.

The Army issued regulations in 1993 specifically restricting who carries what on an Army base, but soldiers were not all sporting holsters and wild-westing it up prior to that, for sure. A select group of soldiers, chosen by the Army, was armed. Judge Andrew Napolitano said on Fox and Friends that as an officer he carried a side arm on Fort Knox in 1970. Maybe that is the solution. Maybe higher ranking  enlisted should be trained to be the ones carrying on base.

The Army is not going to permit ANY soldier to carry personal firearms on base. I had to be issued CLOTHESLINE when I lived on Cherry Point as a Marine’s wife. Of all the things they regulate, they certainly are not going to relinquish control of weapons on base!  There is that whole issue of uniformity.

It doesn’t matter if you earned your welding certificate in the civilian world, it’s worthless to the military. They train you anew.  Why would a concealed carry permit carry any weight with them? The weapon, and the permitting, would have to come from the military, and those who are trying to make this a simple fix know that. With nearly a million and a half active duty personnel where would the budget come from to issue, maintain, track all of these side arms?
What about the Navy, where the only arms training recruits get is using a simulator? Few sailors even touch a real weapon during their training. Air Force installations?   The Coast Guard?
As a parent of 3 military children, of course I want my kids to be able to protect themselves at all times, but I must trust that this team, this FAMILY, has in place protocol that protects the group, not a bunch of individuals protecting themselves. The services do need to rethink the limits they have placed on the group to do that protecting.

More personnel should be carrying a MILITARY ISSUED weapon on base. More personnel should have quick access to weapons in the case of a terrorist attack or threat. More personnel should be ready to assert deadly force on a moment’s notice. In the event of an attack, protocol needs to be in place where hundreds of trained responders should be ready and able to put down one person with a gun, or a dozen. But, every soldier, sailor, airman and marine with a concealed carry permit traipsing about with their weapon of choice? No. Next thing you know the females will be demanding to wear their hair in twisties.

TSO sends us a link from a few minutes ago to an article in the Associated Press in which Army leadership admits that the latest Fort Hood shooter, Ivan Lopez, “saw no combat in Iraq”;

Army Secretary John McHugh testified Thursday that the soldier appeared to have no connections to extremist groups.

The soldier is identified by others as Ivan Lopez. He enlisted in the Army in June 2008 as an infantryman and later switched his specialty to truck driver, the job he had in Iraq.

McHugh says the soldier was examined by a psychiatrist last month and was found to show no violent or suicidal tendencies. He says the soldier had been prescribed Ambien to deal with a sleeping problem.

As I’ve been saying all along, PTS has become an excuse for bad behavior, but on closer examination, something the media is largely unequipped to accept, that’s all it is – an excuse. An excuse largely accepted by the social engineers and our intellectual betters who have all of the answers and none of the experience.