View Full Version : I Trust You Too
Funny, but I doubt if FDR found it necessary to do this at Casablanca, or Churchill at North Africa, Normandy, or on the Rhine; or Eisenhower in Korea...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9144379/Soldiers-asked-to-disarm-during-Leon-Panetta-speech.html
If this is all the trust that our glorious leaders have in US, then perhaps divorce proceedings are in order.
If my memory serves Clinton did the same in places like Bosnia, etc. complete crap in my opinion. Anyone who was down range for a Bush visit can say if that was policy then or no?
Moose-Knuckle
03-14-12, 20:30
Maybe they should have started with his PSD no?
Belmont31R
03-16-12, 16:44
Its been standard procedure since before Obama or this guy got into office.
Bush came to our little post in Germany, and they were pretty tight on what troops could do on post.
Funny story about that, but my car was inop at the time. I parked it in our unit parking lot, and we were down in Hohenfels at time on a month long FTX. Somehow word got back to us the MP's gave everyone a 3 day notice that all the cars in that parking lot had to be moved. Since my car was inop the MP's towed it. When I got back to post from the FTX I went to the MP station and they had no idea who towed my car or where it was. They gave me a list of tow companies they used, and none of them had it. They towed so many cars they never bothered to keep track of license plate numbers or even keep a log of what cars got towed by who. So they basically stole a car worth about 10k at the time and no one had a ****in clue where it was.
I was leaving Al Asad, Iraq in early Sept 2007 one day before Bush was arriving. I was allowed to keep my weapons only because I was leaving more than 12 hrs before the airbase was locked-down. My friends who were staying had their weapons locked in the armory.
I left flew out of Camp Phoenix, A-stan for BAF one day before Hillary Clinton arrived at KIA in November of 2009. There was no problems with Americans with weapons that I heard about.
Maybe it is a Secret Service thing?
montanadave
03-16-12, 18:34
I thought the whole deal started when orders were issued to disarm all Afghan army troops and somebody decided that would create a lot of ill will and precipitate a diplomatic incident so they broadened the order to include both Afghans and American troops.
Cagemonkey
03-16-12, 18:56
I can't comment on the current trend. A similar story that comes to mind is when top Luftwaffe ace Erich Hartman refused to accept the Diamonds to his Knights Cross award if he had to surrender his side arm in order to receive the award from Hitler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Hartmann#The_Diamonds_to_the_Knight.27s_Cross . I'd say he some back bone. P.S. I have no sympathies for the NAZI regime or its policies.
I thought the whole deal started when orders were issued to disarm all Afghan army troops and somebody decided that would create a lot of ill will and precipitate a diplomatic incident so they broadened the order to include both Afghans and American troops.
That was my understanding of the events as described by DOD. My earlier post was to answer the question as to what has happened in the past under Bush. Personally, I would be surprised if most troops were allowed to keep their arms around POTUS.
Suwannee Tim
03-17-12, 19:53
Soldiers asked to disarm during Leon Panetta speech in Afghanistan
Asked? If they were "asked" and didn't want to disarm then they could just say "no". I'll bet they weren't asked. I'll bet they were ordered.
CarlosDJackal
03-17-12, 21:42
Major General Mark Gurganus later said he gave the order because Afghan troops attending the talk were unarmed and he wanted the policy to be consistent for all.
So this supposed leader of Warriors had the troops disarmed because he did not want to make the Afghans feel like the untrustworthy second-hand citizens that they like to act? Nice!!
So this supposed leader of Warriors had the troops disarmed because he did not want to make the Afghans feel like the untrustworthy second-hand citizens that they like to act? Nice!!
Is it any worse than our leaders requiring that I disarm every time I come on post in CONUS?
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the message, or the whole Afghan strategy for that matter. However, our leadership has made clear its distrust of average service members long before this fiasco.
Army Chief
03-18-12, 07:53
Is it any worse than our leaders requiring that I disarm every time I come on post in CONUS?
More than a little ironic, isn't it? I've never understood how our Army managed to end up such a weapons-averse institution. Instead of education and validation, we've consistently relied upon restriction and enforcement of prohibitive policies that are neither uniform, nor particularly well-understood.
AC
montanadave
03-18-12, 08:12
It seems I recall reading U.S. soldiers being deployed to Vietnam 45 years ago (Jesus, has it been that long?) were not permitted to carry their rifles with them on the flights over out of concern that someone would hijack a plane and head for God knows where. Can anyone confirm or deny that?
It seems I recall reading U.S. soldiers being deployed to Vietnam 45 years ago (Jesus, has it been that long?) were not permitted to carry their rifles with them on the flights over out of concern that someone would hijack a plane and head for God knows where. Can anyone confirm or deny that?
from my experience going to Iraq x 2 and Thailand, we had to take our bolts out of our rifles while in the plane.
3ID had soldiers did the same when Bush came to speak at Ft Stewart back in 00 or early 01. Big ole Division formation with weapons for some reason, yet all bolts removed. And this was back when Ft Stewart had no access gates and was free reign for all civilians
from my experience going to Iraq x 2 and Thailand, we had to take our bolts out of our rifles while in the plane.
3ID had soldiers did the same when Bush came to speak at Ft Stewart back in 00 or early 01. Big ole Division formation with weapons for some reason, yet all bolts removed. And this was back when Ft Stewart had no access gates and was free reign for all civilians
I've deployed out of CRC the last 3 times that I went to CENTCOM. Everyone has fully functional weapons on the flight. Most are carrying M9 with a few enlisted having M4/M16.
CarlosDJackal
03-19-12, 14:56
More than a little ironic, isn't it? I've never understood how our Army managed to end up such a weapons-averse institution. Instead of education and validation, we've consistently relied upon restriction and enforcement of prohibitive policies that are neither uniform, nor particularly well-understood.
AC
Firstly, I feel that I need to emphasize that I do not agree with the policy. But the primary reason that they started doing this was because some of the troops who had access to their issued weapons where using them to either commit suicide, shoot themselves (for medical discharges), or shoot at each other.
When I was on AD in the mid 1980s, we had two truck drivers agree to shoot each other in order to gain discharges from the Army. One ended up in the ER and both received dishonorable discharges.
In one of the barracks I was assigned to had bullet holes in some of the rooms as well as the outside because. It turns out the troops that were housed in them had gotten into an argument with the troops in the barracks across the parking lot. So in the heat of their argument, they exchanged shots. I'm not sure what the outcome was or when it actually occurred.
During Basic Training one of the guys in my Platoon decided to steal the Sear from his M-16A1 with the intention to having it installed into his own privately-owned AR-15s. He got caught trying to drop it into the Amnesty Box.
As usual, it's the few idiots that ruin it for the many.
CarlosDJackal
03-19-12, 14:59
Is it any worse than our leaders requiring that I disarm every time I come on post in CONUS?...
Are you in danger of running into a Taliban or Al Qaeda ambush when you leave the Post?
The_War_Wagon
03-19-12, 15:43
I'd of politely declined attending then. If TOO under-ranked to decline, a quick finger down the throat :bad: , and off to sickbay I go! Problem solved! :D
Are you in danger of running into a Taliban or Al Qaeda ambush when you leave the Post?
In some places in this country, you are probably just as likely to be ambushed by a bunch of underprivileged U.S. Citizens.
I also seem to recall a maniac shooting a bunch of unarmed soldiers on U.S. Soil not too long ago.
But maybe you think that service members are only allowed to protect themselves from foreign enemies, not the domestic ones.
Are you in danger of running into a Taliban or Al Qaeda ambush when you leave the Post?
I'm am referring to the DOD policy that prohibits the concealed carry of personally owned firearms on post. I was not calling for soldiers to keep their issued weapons in their living quarters. As far as I'm concerned, my M9 and M4 are the property of Uncle Sam; they are loaned to me during working hours for the purpose of completing a mission. I have no expectation that they are provided to protect me while I'm tooling around Columbus, Fyt'ville, Savannah, or Tacoma. However, I'd like to be able to come onto post with my personal Glock 19 without having to stop at the gate, unload it, and place it in my trunk (even this can get you nailed to a cross in certain situations).
As for your question, I have 2 words: FORT HOOD. If you think that Nidal Hasan was an isolated incident, I suggest that look up Fort Dix. There are plenty of other non-AQ instances of service members being targeted for violence. As it stands now, wearing ACUs in a military town tells potential attackers that you are probably NOT ARMED due to the restrictions of bringing personal weapons on post.
As it stands now, wearing ACUs in a military town tells potential attackers that you are probably NOT ARMED due to the restrictions of bringing personal weapons on post.
It also paints a big red bullseye on you a la Nevada (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/09/06/national-guardsmen-killed-at-carson-city-ihop-shooting/)
It also paints a big red bullseye on you a la Nevada (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/09/06/national-guardsmen-killed-at-carson-city-ihop-shooting/)
That was the exact case that I was referring to in my reference to non-AQ threats to service members.
You know, there was a brief period after 9/11 when were were instructed by TRADOC not to fly or otherwise travel in uniform whenever possible. This was around the time that the NG was standing post at the airports with UNLOADED weapons (and empty mags in their carriers). The fear was that we would be targeted for terrorist attacks. Imagine how refreshing it would have been to instead be told to buy a personal weapon, become proficient with it, and carry it whenever possible.
SeriousStudent
03-20-12, 19:19
That was the exact case that I was referring to in my reference to non-AQ threats to service members.
You know, there was a brief period after 9/11 when were were instructed by TRADOC not to fly or otherwise travel in uniform whenever possible. This was around the time that the NG was standing post at the airports with UNLOADED weapons (and empty mags in their carriers). The fear was that we would be targeted for terrorist attacks. Imagine how refreshing it would have been to instead be told to buy a personal weapon, become proficient with it, and carry it whenever possible.
Wait till I become SecDef. :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.