Wartime PC danger
From yesterday's Washington Times Inside the Ring section:
Wartime PC danger
E-mails from U.S. military officers in Iraq and Afghanistan have exposed an alarming, politically correct practice that is endangering the lives of troops serving in those conflict zones.
According to the officers, U.S. troops are being forced to carry unloaded weapons on most U.S. bases because commanders are more worried about a "negligent" discharge than the very real likelihood of a terrorist attack by an insider on the base. The rule is all the more disconcerting because these troops are in areas where they receive combat pay.
Defense officials say the fear of "negligent" weapon discharge is due to lack of training and is different from concerns about accidental discharge, which involves a mechanical malfunction that rarely occurs.
"This selection of political correctness and safety concerns over force protection contrasts markedly with combat experience in World War II, Korea or Vietnam, where soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines were required to be armed - with loaded weapons - at all times," one official said.
"This is a gross failure of leadership, and in all likelihood has contributed to the U.S. casualty rate," the official said.
The officer in Iraq said the unloaded-gun rule is a symptom of bigger military leadership problems, especially in the Army.
"Unfortunately, many military leaders are little more than managers, and many of those have consciously chosen to reduce themselves to the level of permanent administrator, because it is safer for their careers than risking real decision-making," he said.
The officer warned that the leadership crisis in the Army is producing a "stilted, uninspired Army."
"Such a sterile, hyper-politicized, ponderous, disconnected Army is no match for an inspired, committed, agile, flexible force, even one smaller and less technologically sophisticated," he said of the Islamic terrorist enemy.
A soldier in Afghanistan said the no-loaded-weapons rule is true for bases there as well, adding that soldiers are required to unload weapons after returning from "Indian country."
"The idea that anyone, anywhere, would carry firearms for serious social interaction, yet do so with them in any condition other than ready to fire at a moment's notice, is so stupid no 'discussion' appears necessary, at least among the sane," the soldier said.
Wartime PC danger
E-mails from U.S. military officers in Iraq and Afghanistan have exposed an alarming, politically correct practice that is endangering the lives of troops serving in those conflict zones.
According to the officers, U.S. troops are being forced to carry unloaded weapons on most U.S. bases because commanders are more worried about a "negligent" discharge than the very real likelihood of a terrorist attack by an insider on the base. The rule is all the more disconcerting because these troops are in areas where they receive combat pay.
Defense officials say the fear of "negligent" weapon discharge is due to lack of training and is different from concerns about accidental discharge, which involves a mechanical malfunction that rarely occurs.
"This selection of political correctness and safety concerns over force protection contrasts markedly with combat experience in World War II, Korea or Vietnam, where soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines were required to be armed - with loaded weapons - at all times," one official said.
"This is a gross failure of leadership, and in all likelihood has contributed to the U.S. casualty rate," the official said.
The officer in Iraq said the unloaded-gun rule is a symptom of bigger military leadership problems, especially in the Army.
"Unfortunately, many military leaders are little more than managers, and many of those have consciously chosen to reduce themselves to the level of permanent administrator, because it is safer for their careers than risking real decision-making," he said.
The officer warned that the leadership crisis in the Army is producing a "stilted, uninspired Army."
"Such a sterile, hyper-politicized, ponderous, disconnected Army is no match for an inspired, committed, agile, flexible force, even one smaller and less technologically sophisticated," he said of the Islamic terrorist enemy.
A soldier in Afghanistan said the no-loaded-weapons rule is true for bases there as well, adding that soldiers are required to unload weapons after returning from "Indian country."
"The idea that anyone, anywhere, would carry firearms for serious social interaction, yet do so with them in any condition other than ready to fire at a moment's notice, is so stupid no 'discussion' appears necessary, at least among the sane," the soldier said.
0
-
quote:"Unfortunately, many military leaders are little more than managers, and many of those have consciously chosen to reduce themselves to the level of permanent administrator, because it is safer for their careers than risking real decision-making," he said.
I had a year and three months of that! Every level of my chain of command from my E-5 team leader all the way up to the O-5 Battalion Commander refused to make decisions because they were too damn scared about loosing, as in the case of my BC and his Bronze Star, awards and ruining their already defunct military careers.[:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!] It's enough to make an E-3 want to clean house in the chain.0 -
huh? Who got killed on a base where everyone was walking around with unloaded weapons? Has there been any attacks on soldiers on base where a loaded weapon would have helped?
The one thing that comes to mind is the incident in Iraq where the chow hall was blown up, but what would a loaded weapon have accomplished? Nothing because no one knew the guy was packing.
Zulu, you were in Arifjan right? How many soldiers actually carry their weapons around the base? (unless they are going off post for whatever reason) The majority (if not all) of military personnel have their weapons in the arms room during the day.
I just don't see a need for soldiers to have loaded weapons when they are in "the rear".
Our chaplain here lost his daughter over there due to a negligent discharge. It was a tragic loss of life that could have been avoided.
I know you guys will probably flame me for this. But before you do, please show me an instance where a loaded weapon could have saved a soldiers life in a "safe" area.0 -
quote:Originally posted by rogue_rob
huh? Who got killed on a base where everyone was walking around with unloaded weapons? Has there been any attacks on soldiers on base where a loaded weapon would have helped?
The one thing that comes to mind is the incident in Iraq where the chow hall was blown up, but what would a loaded weapon have accomplished? Nothing because no one knew the guy was packing.
Zulu, you were in Arifjan right? How many soldiers actually carry their weapons around the base? (unless they are going off post for whatever reason) The majority (if not all) of military personnel have their weapons in the arms room during the day.
I just don't see a need for soldiers to have loaded weapons when they are in "the rear".
Our chaplain here lost his daughter over there due to a negligent discharge. It was a tragic loss of life that could have been avoided.
I know you guys will probably flame me for this. But before you do, please show me an instance where a loaded weapon could have saved a soldiers life in a "safe" area.
I was at Navistar.0 -
In that case, it makes sense to reach the conclusion that CCW licensees should also carry their weapons unloaded. Those civilian CCW holders for the most part, have less training than Servicemen, and, are in less lethal surroundings.
Bad logic in both cases.
Doug0 -
Isn't that what happened with the Marine barrack bombing in Lebanon? The guards had rifles that were unloaded. They had to load them when the truck ran the gates, but it was too late.
I may be wrong, but that's how I remember the story. Someone please educate me.0 -
When I was in Germany (84-89) none of the base gate guards had their M16s loaded, just their side-arms. It was explained to me that they did not trust them with bullets in the M16s. Sad! 0 -
Got this from Wikipedia, so I'm not exactly sure if I should believe it.
C&P:
quote:The Marine sentries at the gate were operating under their rules of engagement, which made it very difficult to respond quickly to the truck. By the time the two sentries had locked, loaded, and shouldered their weapons, the truck was already inside the building's entry way.0 -
It's self protection. For the exact type of officer mentioned in the article.
They never get near any action or you would be seeing the grunts carrying unloaded weapons in the field. [}:)]
just my .02
Allen0 -
bottom line they don't trust them, it would be more practical just not to load on in the chamber
i see many police officers that can't hit the berm, and have AD's0 -
quote:Originally posted by Wrangler
Isn't that what happened with the Marine barrack bombing in Lebanon? The guards had rifles that were unloaded. They had to load them when the truck ran the gates, but it was too late.
I may be wrong, but that's how I remember the story. Someone please educate me.
Marines with M16s wouldn't have made a difference in that case. Anyone else with an example?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Wrangler
Isn't that what happened with the Marine barrack bombing in Lebanon? The guards had rifles that were unloaded. They had to load them when the truck ran the gates, but it was too late.
I may be wrong, but that's how I remember the story. Someone please educate me.
Reagan's policy was that no weapons would be loaded, something that he probably regretted for the remainder of his life.0 -
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by Wrangler
Isn't that what happened with the Marine barrack bombing in Lebanon? The guards had rifles that were unloaded. They had to load them when the truck ran the gates, but it was too late.
I may be wrong, but that's how I remember the story. Someone please educate me.
Reagan's policy was that no weapons would be loaded, something that he probably regretted for the remainder of his life.
thats if he had a clue0 -
quote:Originally posted by rogue_rob
I know you guys will probably flame me for this. But before you do, please show me an instance where a loaded weapon could have saved a soldiers life in a "safe" area.
Maybe I'm going back too far, but Pearl Harbor is a fine example...
Soldiers, sailors and Marines on watch on the morning of Dec 7th 1941 had no ammunition for the hundreds of weapons at their disposal.
Worst of all, the anti-aircraft weapons had no ammunition....
When Jap planes were blanketing the skies, American servicemen had nothing to fight back with....a couple thousand died thanks to asinine "safety" concerns
There is no such thing as a safe zone in Iraq.0 -
+1. Two or three Jap planes shot down there were taken with BAR's. The AA ammo was locked down in an armory. By the time the second attack wave came in they had gotten the ammo available but the damage had been done. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
14 comments