Mullen wouldn’t arm troops

| April 7, 2014

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?

Category: Military issues

Comments (59)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Sparks says:

    “What’s the message that the troops are receiving from their leadership when hand-wringing pansies like Mullen make these proclamations?”

    I think the message is clear to any troop who thinks. While we trust you to go to war for us and use your weapon, justly and rightly, once you are back in the CONUS, you WILL BE considered to be a potentially crazed and dangerous person and therefore not trusted to touch yourself in the shower, much less have a weapon on post. “Sign here on this line that you received this briefing and your copy of the form son.”

  2. Ex-344MP says:

    I have a solution to this problem. Have the MP’S perform thier mission of Law and Order instead of using Rent A Cop contractors. Too many Mp’s, especially the kids, are taught basic L&O, but have never pulled patrol on base because the focus of the MP’S has become thier secondary mission of Combat Support (I.e. Infantry with badges.)

    That’s just my 2 cents.

    • PavePusher says:

      That still leaves a problem with the amount of area they must cover, and resultant response time. If someone is unlawfully shooting people, they need to be stopped NOW, not 2 minutes or 5 minutes or 15 minutes from NOW. Assuming you can make the phone-call for help….

      And it’s been empirically demonstrated that these attackers almost always stop/suicide as soon as they are confronted by effective, armed resistance.

  3. Pinto Nag says:

    Maybe this needs to go the other direction. Every police officer on duty carries a sidearm. Perhaps all soldiers should, also.

    • Ex-344MP says:

      Here’s another thought to compound on all of this.

      You don’t need more armed soldiers when you have garrison MP’S already ARMED and patrolling the bases.

      I understand that every major base in Iraq and A – Stan has a L&O MP unit patrolling it. Unfortunately, not enough MP units are doing it, and when I was in Iraq, it was Reserve and Guard units pulling the L&O mission.

      Not enough Active Duty MP units have L&O experience.

      It’s really simple to allow those units to do this mission here in CONUS, and when they were, you didn’t have the issues we are dealing with today back then.

      Again, my 2 cents.

      • VKT says:

        I agree completely. In my observation, just because you wear a uniform doesn’t mean you are qualified to carry a weapon. I don’t know how many times a day I cringed watching men and women walking around in the chow halls in Iraq with pistols and/or rifles on them while wearing PT gear and a reflective belts. These people have no muzzle awareness, dropping their weapons on the floor, just strapping on their weapons because they had to. Just watching how they handled their weapons you would know they didn’t know how to use them. I was more worried about getting accidentally shot by these folks than by the Iraqis. Man, you get multiple chances to clear your weapons outside the wire and you discharge a round in the clearing barrel outside the chow hall?

    • CATM says:

      I’m former AF Security Forces (fancy term for MP). I have had to train the base populious when they get ready to deploy and a good portion of these people scare me with the lack of common sense and safety. A few examples are we had a courier shoot a round into the wall in the bathroom of his shop because he was “quick drawing” at himself in the mirror. Another occasion was an augmentee who decided she was going to put a few rounds into the clearing barrel just because she didn’t feel like working. I do agree that we need to make some changes as we always had a large area to cover and few patrols on the road so most shops were owner/user security and you called us if it got out of hand. Having a few people in each shop that have a higher level of training and the weapons stay secured in thier shop until needed might end the situation or buy time for the responders to get there, but giving everyone a sidearm is asking for problems as I’m sure they will get lost/stolen/forgotten about ect.

      • PavePusher says:

        Respectfully, as a USAF UDM and firearms enthusiast, this is primarily a problem of lack of training, lack of frequency of training and quality of training. Which is not your fault, but the fault of those who design, fund and implement the training, i.e. the upper chain of command. (And also weeding out personnel unsuited for military duty.)

        I’ve had to take several people to local off-base ranges and coach them in basic shooting skills so that they can pass pre-deployment or Security Forces-Augmentee training. One day and less than 200 rounds is not sufficient for ANY proficiency.

        • CATM says:

          Someone who knows my pain. We do our best with the resources we are given, but it is never enough.

  4. cannoncocker says:

    The idiocy gets far worse than this on occasion. In 2011 and 2012, Ft. Campbell was cutting back on the number of armed civilian guards they had on the gates. The solution to the staffing problem was to assign various battalions around post to provide soldiers and a SOG for a 1 month rotation of gate guard detail. I was lucky enough to get grabbed up to be a shift SOG for a month on gate 3 back in 2012. We had to attend a training class for the detail. Of course the issue of weapons and security arose. We were told, I sh!t you not, that we were not allowed to carry weapons while on gate guard detail, and that we would still have one armed civilian guard assigned to our gate as our “backup” if trouble was afoot. I did not hide my feelings toward this plan. But for our peace of mind, we were ordered to bring our IBA and ACH with us every day to keep in the guard shack, for in the event something went down we would be able to retreat to the guard shack and throw our battle rattle on and then…..I honestly don’t know what the f$ck we were supposed to do then. Since then, they’ve actually assigned MP’s to do what MP’s were supposed to be doing this whole damn time, checking ID’s at the gate and being armed while doing it.

  5. David says:

    I remember when Bader-Meinhof was active, and the response was to post motor pool guards to prevent dangerous armed terrorists from making off with our valuable Jeeps and deuce-and-a-halves. our deterrent for tthose purportedly heavily armed Commie terrorists was a foot-long pseudo billy stick… damned right we intimidated them terrorists!

    • martinjmpr says:

      I was in Germany just after this period (87-89) and our “security” was to pull gate guard at Hindenburg Kaserne with an unloaded M-16! We were required to have an empty magazine in the gun. Our instructions if we were attacked was to hunker down and call the MPs, since they were the only ones trustworthy enough to have ammo!

      • martinjmpr says:

        Keep in mind this was at Division Headquarters for 1st Armored Division, so yeah, not like they were a big target or anything…

        • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:


          In 1978 I was at Fort Dix and pulled guard duty at a mostly empty motor pool warehouse.

          I had an M-16 with a 30 round magazine fully loaded to walk this perimeter.

          My instructions were to try not to accidentally kill anyone during the night.

          When did it become common to have empty weapons on guard duty?

          • Hondo says:

            Can’t speak for Dix, but at Bragg from 1979-1981 motorpool guards in some units patrolled armed with axe handles (or maybe pickaxe handles – that was 33+ years ago now).

          • Cacti35 says:

            I was in a repo depo at Ft. Dix in 1966 enroute Germany. I had to pull several shifts of guard duty around a junkyard with an unloaded M-14. In Germany 5 klicks from commies we had an unloaded M-14 with a magazine in the ammo pouch guarding a weapons arsenal. It was kind of spooky late at night in the middle of nowhere!

            I think that at least platoon sergeants and platoon leaders should be authorized to carry an issued sidearm.

          • David says:

            well, I entered in 1976 and the most I was ever issued on any guad duty was 3 rounds – 99% of the time I had an empty magazine and about all we could do was yell “Halt or I’ll click!”

          • PFM says:

            I was at Dix in 84 as a trainee, and all of us that shot expert were given the surprise privilege of guarding the ASP out in the middle of nowhere, with an M16A1 and five rounds. 18 years old – we managed not to shoot each other :).

  6. CB Senior says:

    He would have no problem arming them with weed eaters and hedge trimmer to take care of his house though.

  7. Ex-344MP says:

    Never wore Armour while working gate or on patrol. We did however wear vests under our uniforms.

    No offense to an any other MOS’ S out there, but other Units just don’t have the training to do that kind of work.

    That’s why you have an MP Corp. They have a vested interest to make sure it’s done right whatever the L&O mission is because it directly influences an MP’S carreer. You screw the pooch as an MP with bad report writing, carelessness on traffic stops or responding to calls, ultimately the Desk Sgt is responsible for your conduct in the field.

    • Ex-344MP says:

      Oh and lest we forget……The MP Regimental crest says it perfectly. “Assist, PROTECT, DEFEND”

  8. tread head says:

    I don’t think just anyone who happens to have a civilian CCW permit should be armed on base, BUT there’s no reason why the military can’t train and arm most NCOs and Officers. I’m not talking about the standard BS military handgun qualification course on a static range garbage, but some realistic, defensive tactics training on a hot range, much like every police department in the country does. Let’s face it, unarmed “security” are nothing more than speed bumps. Guys like Mullen, who had their security taken care of, should be ashamed of their willingness to sacrifice unarmed soldiers to lunatics and terrorists.

  9. Jonn Lilyea says:

    We augmented the MPs in Panama during the treaty negotiations when the Panamanians were bombing housing areas and leaving car bombs in the PX parking lot. We were all armed with .45s and just a bunch of dumbass grunts. We made it through that episode with no casualties.

    However, a few years back, two civilian gate guards at the old Walter Reed got into a shoot out at the main gate over a woman. Both of them emptied their handguns, but neither was hit.

    • Ex-344MP says:

      Key word John, Augmented. Ultamitely the responsibility fell on the MP’s and thier Command. Am I correct in this?

      • Jonn Lilyea says:

        By “augmented” I meant the MP company took Christmas leave and we pulled their shifts for three weeks. No, there were no MPs on duty on the Pacific side of Panama. Only grunts.

  10. Ex-344MP says:

    I apologize everyone. This subject just burns me because I have watched my beloved Corps lose its focus due to these wars. While I agree that MP’S were needed to perform the overall mission of re training the police forces in A – Stan and Iraq, my experience doing this mission showed me that they didn’t want to have a western style Police force and our leaders in thier arrogance thought that they should force it down thier throats.

    How many Iraqi Police and A – Stan police were smuggling weapons into the major cities of there? Or better yet, how many were just playing along until we left?

    I know in the 15 months we were partnered with a police statio n, they never changed thier ways. They just played along until we did our joint patrols, then just went back to doing the same thing they have always done, sit at a checkpoint and wait for trouble to come to them instead of being proactive in prosecuting crimes.

    Ok.Done venting now. 🙂

  11. CWO5USMC says:

    The link is what has been in place at IMEF in Pendleton since 2006….signed by Gen Mattis when he was the CG here. I googled it so it should come up for everyone.

    It answers the mail on added security for Marines, whether in CONUS or deployed. Food for thought… and Mattis for President!!

    • ExHack says:

      Because Mattis. Mattis, like thick-cut bacon, is his own justification and his own reward, a human circular argument that is absolutely compelling in its logic. He would make a splendid President, but alas, we get only the leadership we as a nation deserve.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Getting built-up outside the Yadkin Gate– but Chicken and Plank Roads leading up to the Chicken Road Gate are still wide open. (Avoided using them going out to CP Mackall for the reasons you describe.)

  13. martinjmpr says:

    I seriously doubt the military would ever relax its rules regarding weapons on post/base. It’s contrary to the nature of military thought which is based on a concept of control.

    To put it a different way, the military is fine with people carrying weapons, as long as they’re doing so for the military’s purposes, and not for that individual’s purpose. That explains why the same military can have a rule for personnel deployed to a combat zone where carrying weapons is required, and another one where the carrying of weapons off duty in garrison is prohibited – because it’s about control, not security.

    Now, having said the above, I could see some installations coming up with a “guardian angel” or “designated shooter” program. It would work like this: A roster would be drawn up of people of a certain rank – I would guess it would be NCO’s primarily, maybe a few junior officers. Personnel would be nominated by their command based on observed characteristics such as maturity, competence, ability to react to stress, etc.

    Those personnel would then have to go through a class and be certified not only on marksmanship, but also on weapons handling/reloading, emergency response, first aid, communications, scene management, etc.

    Once those personnel were selected, and trained, a duty roster would be drawn up and people assigned for a 24 or 48 hour shift. At the beginning of ths shift, they’d draw a weapon from the arms room and ammo, possibly a radio or cell phone as well (although, really, who doesn’t have their own phone these days?) At the end of their duty, the weapon would be returned to the arms room.

    I could see that happening, but allowing troops to carry their own POW’s on post is something I can’t see the brass going for – too many wild cards, too little ability to keep troops under control, and too much worry that SPC Joe Snuffy is going to get drunk and shoot his battle buddy because the battle buddy banged Joe’s girlfriend while Joe was deployed.

    • Martinjmpr says:

      Whoops, I hit send too early!

      Anyway, in my imaginary “guardian angel/Designated shooter” scenario above, the individual “on duty” would have a concealed weapons permit signed by the installation commander and authorizing him to carry concealed anywhere on post/base (to include commissary/PX, hospital, etc.)

      The permit would only be effective when that individual was on duty, which would mean that most likely they would have to be a controlled item similar to the Badge and Credentials (B’s and C’s) that CID and Counterintelligence Agents have, would be kept in the arms room and would be issued out when that soldier went on duty and surrendered along with the weapon at the end of the tour.

      Soldiers on duty would (obviously) be prohibited from consuming alcohol while on duty, though they would not neccessarily be prohibited from being in an establishment that served alcohol (bowling alley, NCO club, etc.)

      The permit would not neccessarily be effective off-post, although if the soldier also has a state-issued CCW permit, that would cover him off the installation. My guess is that no LEO would hassle a soldier carrying a weapon off duty if he had the post-issued permit, unless that soldier was acting like an ass.

      My point with all this is to say that there are things the military could try that would work, the only question is whether this is enough of a “problem” for the military to need to do anything about it.

  14. How often do we learn of any news reports of similar mass murders by deranged military personnel in Switzerland or Israel?

    We should follow the example of the Swiss Army and the Israel Defense Force.

    Require every soldier to always have their issued weapon and ammunition with them at all times and in all places, whether on duty and in uniform, or off duty and in mufti.

    Any individual who can not be trusted with that responsibility should not be permitted to serve in the ranks.

    • Of course, I also believe that EVERY citizen should always be armed, at all times and in all places.

      I also believe all military personnel and every individual citizen should be trained as Emergency Medical Technicians, with their weapons, medical trauma kits, firefighting/rescue tools, and wilderness survival gear stored in their personal vehicles at all times and in all places.

      I really do believe we are supposed to be our brother’s keeper, AND this would also lower taxes, as their would be less need for professional, paid police officers, firefighters, plus, our society would require fewer prison facilities.

  15. Jonn Lilyea says:

    Let me see if I can get this out without sounding too angry; First of all, an MP’s job isn’t that tough for an infantryman. If you want me to operate the radar gun or the breathalyzer, I might have problems, but the rest of it I’ve done. And I’ve done it unarmed. In fact, the MPs loved me when I had CP, because I’d break up fights and get the perps to the custody of their CQs before the MPs knew there was a problem. I’d have drunks stacked up in the van like cord wood and drop them off with their first sergeants.

    When we pulled augmentation (with no MPs) we were responsible to our NCOs too. We were always accountable to our NCOs. That isn’t unique to MPs.

    Y’all noticed that I said troops above the rank of E-4 should have guns, right? If you’re promoting people to E-5 who you wouldn’t trust with a gun, you need to seriously look at your promotion criteria. If the Pentagon is scared of armed buck sergeants, they need to spend more time down range. I remember when CQs in the 82d were locked and loaded.

    It’s called the profession of arms for a reason.

    • Ex-344MP says:

      Sorry if I upset you Jonn, that wasn’t the intention.

      My main point is that the MP’s need to be doing their primary mission. Law and Order. Their secondary mission is Combat Support.

      Currently the MP’S primary mission is farmed out to contractors.

      Breaking up fights is one thing, investigating crimes is another. Hence the need for MP’s and CID.

      Combat Arms troops are great to perform basic security, but they will never take the place of some one whose training focuses on that job.

      I’m not saying it can’t be done, but wouldn’t it be better to have troops on ground who are trained in that discipline?

      • Martinjmpr says:

        Ex-344: I was an MP in the CO National Guard from 1984 to 1986 and also in the USAR when I left active duty from 1996-98 (including a deployment to Hungary/Croatia for OJG.)

        From what I’ve observed, the Army has gone back and forth on what the role of the Military Police is. Back in the 80’s all we did was CS (Combat Support), basically MSR patrols and rear-area battle drills (essentially light infantry mounted on jeeps.) We were told then that the Army was phasing out the LE (Law Enforcement) MP mission in favor of having professional civilian cops.

        By the time I was back on active duty in the 90’s the pendulum had swung the other way. In the time of the post-cold-war drawdown, it was cheaper to use MP’s for LE (since you already had to pay them to be there anyway) so the CS mission got the short end of the stick.

        Then 9/11 happened and OEF, followed by OIF, and all the MP’s got deployed to go do CS duty in the combat zone and the LE duty was again handed over to civilians.

        I think the real problem is that the Army doesn’t know what it wants to do, or more accurately, the army wants MPs to do both missions but makes it difficult to do either one.

        The USAF finally solved this dilemma by dividing their security troops into two separate career fields: One for policing and one for CS-type security (Security Forces or SF for short. And yes, I rolled my eyes a little at the acronym, too.)

        • Ex-344MP says:

          Oh I agree as well. You hit the nail on the head. Big Army to this day is conflicted on the role of MP’s. They should separate out MOS ‘ S to include both Combat Support and L&O like they separate out MP’S into Bravos (L&O) and Echoes (Corrections).

          Interesting tidbit… any Bravo can substitute for an Echo, but you had to have at least half be Echoes because of the specialized training you get.

    • FatCircles0311 says:

      Back in 2001/2002 Marine Corps Camp Lejeune thought it pertinent to augment the military police on base with grunts with body armor and rifles. Good enough then but now incomprehensible.

      It’s amazing that whenever are troops are intentionally unarmed whether it’s in Afghanistan or at home they are targeted. One would think the DOD would have gotten their shit together by now.

    • OldSoldier54 says:


  16. FatCircles0311 says:

    I’m sure he rolls around with armed security. I know officers do while in country surrounded by their troops that already have weapons.

    More Lords not wanting the serfs to have basic rights afforded to the rest of the population by the US Constitution. You don’t have to do anything that costs anything to simply allow personal on base to use a CCW license, Oldballs.

    • FAT CIRCLES 0311 wrote:

      “basic rights afforded to the rest of the population by the US Constitution”


      We don’t get our rights from the Constitution!

      We were born already endowed with certain unalienable rights, innumerable and unspecified, bequeathed unto us from the Heavens by our Almighty God.

      Our divinely inspired Constitution of the United States of America exists only for the purpose of imposing strict limitations on the power and authority of federal government.

  17. Just An Old Dog says:

    Base and area commanders are commissioned officers. They should be trusted to figure out how many servivemembers and weapons they need to keep their areas secure.
    The beltway brownosers and civilians need to let them do their job.

    • Richard says:

      “they should be trusted …” so I Milley going to get canned because somebody got shot on this post? And if not then why not?

  18. PavePusher says:

    There are two problems keeping Commanders from arming the majority of troops, Service-wide.

    1. Lack of training. Let’s face it, most military weapons training is for shit. Unless you are infantry, SpecOps, or SP/MP/SF, You shoot once a year, at best, and for the bulk of the USAF, only just before a deployment/TDY that requires it. One day, less than 200 rounds. So I understand the reluctance to arm troops so ill-prepared… but the blame rests squarely at the feet of the chain of command that has deliberately decided that the modern military doesn’t need to be trained to fight. From the President, down to the base Commanders, they’ve determined that a toothless military is politically expedient. So the blood of our comrades is on their hands.

    2. Risk-aversion Brass-promotion-agendas. And by ‘brass’, I mean both officers and senior enlisted who measure their career progression by their political appearance, and zero-tolerance-for-risk approach to military life. If they train AND arm people, accidents WILL happen. And these days, anyone with a less-than-sparkling resume won’t get the next rank. Be known as the Commander or CMSgt whose troops had two negligent discharges off in the wild-blue-yonder over two years, and it won’t matter how many actual crimes got stopped or lives saved. This requires a paradigm change, but I’m not sure how to accomplish it short of firing 4/5ths of the O-6/E-8 and up and telling the rest that they are war-fighters again, not plaster saints or blow-up dolls.

    • Richard says:

      My son just completed 8 years active duty — two tours in Iraq outside the fence and a tour in A-Stan inside the fence. During that time I probably fired ten times more rounds in training that he did. That is SERIOUSLY screwed up.

      If you have NDs then it needs to mean something — one is very unpleasant and two costs a stripe. Safety is essential. The only people who should be endangered by a WS weapon is the enemy. A military person who not safe with a weapon is a liability in a combat zone and, in my meager and worthless opinion, somebody needs to come up with a really good reason why they aren’t separated. Like someone else said, they are called “the armed forces” for a reason.

  19. Smaj says:

    Well, that’s because he is a useless, craven politically correct toadie, who BTW had 24/7 armed security protecting him in at leasrt his last two military assignments. Service people can be trusted to safely carry a personal weapon and ammo 24/7 while deployed but can’t be trusted to safely conceal carry (if they even chose to) in garrison. That doesn’t make much sense.

  20. Martinjmpr says:

    Some of these high ranking officers are actually afraid to be in the presence of their own armed troops! Back in 1988 or so, my unit (HQ, 1st Armored Div) was deployed to Hohenfels for a month-long maneuver training with our brigades. Division HQ was set up on a hill overlooking the garrison area (was it called Alberthof? For some reason that sticks in my brain but it was more than 25 years ago, so I’m not sure.)

    Anyway, one day while we were there, the SACEUR(Supreme Allied Commander, Europe – basically the head of all NATO forces in Europe, a US 4 star general) was going to pay a visit. His security people made us lock up all the M-16s in the DTOC (Division Tactical Command Post) and then, after that, they decided that wasn’t “safe” enough for SACEUR so they actually locked us IN to our vans.

    This was in “peacetime” and the only troops in the DTOC were American troops. IOW, no foreigners or civilians, just US troops and the SACEUR’s security people didn’t think it was safe for him to be around them.

    • Devtun says:

      Army GEN John Galvin was top guy in Europe back then (Petraeus was his aide de camp at one time)…not the a$$wipe as another SACEUR years later…Wes Clark.

      • Martinjmpr says:

        Correct, this was Galvin.

        And of course, having worked at Div and Corps HQ and seen the “butt snorkeling” that goes on around GO’s, I don’t assume this was Galvin’s policy, rather it was undoubtedly the GFI (Great F***ing Idea) of one of his many, many aides, adjutants, assistants, ring bearers and butt kissers.

  21. cav medic says:

    “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.”
    As is your prejudice of only allowing soldiers above the rank of E-4 to do so.
    It’s that kind of thinking that has us FUCKED when it come to the Second Ammendment and the destruction of our Constitution.
    As has been said, “what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don’t you understand?”

  22. Poohbah, Lord High Everything Else says:

    Arming the troops = more negligent discharges.

    Yes, it’s that simple.

    And no commanding officer is willing court that. Because that means every last swing richard in his unit is another risk of instantly ending the CO’s career.

    So, no, you’re not going to see troops armed in garrison. And they’re not going to be removing those silly reflector belts any time soon, either.

    • FatCircles0311 says:

      lol @ ORM

      Better dead troops than the possibility of command having to do something.

      ND’s are only an issue and occur if units allow them. Otherwise ND’s are such a rare occurrence it’s not even considered as a reason for anything.

      • Martinjmpr says:

        Have to disagree with you there. On every deployment I’ve been on, NDs were extremely common, even among combat arms personnel.

        When I was at Buehring in mid- to late 2004, there wasn’t a week that went by without either (a) an ND or (b) someone losing a weapon. Sometimes we’d have both in one week. Most common reason for ND was someone trying to clear an M9 at the clearing barrel and getting their sequence wrong (it’s supposed to be [1] Drop magazine, [2] THEN rack the slide, [3] THEN point the barrel into the clearing barrel and [4] THEN pull the trigger. If you do [2] before you do [1], the result is “BANG!”

        And lest you think this is a service-specific thing, those stats didn’t change when the personnel transiting through Buehring were Marines, either.

  23. A Proud Infidel® says:

    According to the Grand High & Almighty Brass-Assed Scmucks and their staff weasels, ALL that needs to be done is to further lock down the personnel and feed them more “Death by PowerPoint” briefings, and DON’T FORGET THEIR PT BELTS!!!

  24. The following quote is copied and pasted from my post, “MEMORIES OF ISRAEL”, at own personal web site, “OUR ETERNAL STRUGGLE”:

    “Upon graduation from their Basic Combat Training, each of the new Israeli soldiers is issued two (02) sacred and very special items – – – , an assault rifle and a Bible.

    Oh, if ONLY we would do the same thing in our own United States Army!

    Yes, upon successful completion of their Basic Combat Training, just as they do in the modern State of Israel today, each and every one of our new soldiers in our United States Army should be issued a Holy Bible and an assault rifle – – – , with the issued assault rifle to remain in his personal possession and carried with him, fully loaded, at all times and in all places.

    If a common, ordinary soldier can not be trusted with that responsibility, then he shouldn’t be in the United States Army, should he?

    As it now stands, in the eyes of our Almighty God, we Americans, as a people and as a nation, surely are condemned by our own hand, because of contemporary social acceptance and enthusiastic promotion of abortion, infanticide, homosexuality, paedophilia, euthanasia, adultery, and outright rejection of the Bible and of Jesus, who is the Christ.”

    This is the URL for that post: