I could hardly believe my eyes when I read this news from Afghanistan.
Less than a week after a US staff sergeant allegedly massacred 16 civilians in Kandahar, American soldiers were banned from bringing guns into a talk by Mr Panetta at a base in Helmand province.
Around 200 troops who had gathered in a tent at Camp Leatherneck were told “something had come to light” and asked abruptly to file outside and lay down their automatic rifles and 9mm pistols.
“Somebody got itchy, that’s all I’ve got to say. Somebody got itchy – we just adjust,” said the sergeant who was told to clear the hall of weapons.
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.
“You’ve got one of the most important people in the world in the room,” he told the New York Times, insisting that the decision was unrelated to Sunday’s killings. “This is not a big deal.”
However, US troops often remain armed even when their Afghan colleagues have been asked to lay down their weapons and the incident is believed to be the first time they were stripped of guns during an address by their own secretary of defence.
There’s more at the link.
“Not a big deal”???
General Gurganus, you have got to be shitting me. Just who the hell do you think you’re fooling? Of course it’s a big deal! When you disarm your own troops – particularly in that fashion, when they were already inside the venue – you’re implicitly saying that front-line Marine combatants can’t be trusted with guns in their hands to hear a speech by the head of the Defense Department. You may as well say, out loud, that you’re scared they might shoot him. What other interpretation is possible for such an outrageous order?
Speaking as a combat veteran, if I were one of those Marines, I’d formally protest that order all the way up the chain of command. If those in command over me tried to ignore my protests, or silence me, I’d have no choice but to request to be discharged from service, as their actions would make it clear to me that they didn’t trust me. I could do nothing else, in all honor.
This is absolutely sickening! I can only hope that someone at Marine Corps HQ relieves General Gurganus of his command at once, and makes sure that he never again commands combat troops. His order was, and is, a disgrace to the Corps and to his country. If that doesn’t happen – if he’s allowed to retain his appointment, and gets away with an order like that – I’ll be forced to interpret it as a sign that something has gone terribly, perhaps irreparably wrong in the upper ranks of the US Marine Corps. In that case, I hope their subordinates take note . . . before it’s too late.
WWCD? What would Chesty do? I think, if he were still alive, and within reach of Gen. Gurganus, the latter might, right about now, be regretting the day he was born . . .
Peter
If Panetta is not the Commander in Chief, why did these troops not stay outside? They were disarmed. They were out of uniform! This was crazy!
I hate to tell you this, but disarming the troops around VIPs is a pretty common precaution that has been taken as far back as Vietnam.
In Iraq, even for George Bush, disarming everyone going to an "event" was standard. Hell, they did it for his father in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm.
And, yes, I do think it's insulting, and I think it's tragic for a Republic such as ours that the troops aren't trusted, but if you look at it from the standpoint of the Secret Service, you begin to think it's more reasonable. How many of those troops out there are potentially another Major Hassan?
If I was in charge of a security detail for one of these guys, I'd damn sure have to do some careful thinking about what I did, and I suspect I'd come down on the "Disarm everyone…" side of things. You can't very well demand the Afghans to disarm in the presence of our VIPs, if we don't.
It's a mess, but that's what it is.
According to NBC News, the action was, 'highly unusual'.
And, "Military officials in Washington told NBC News' chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski that the decision to disarm the Marines was indeed significant."
I searched for instances of disarming troops for Washington bureaucrats in the past and couldn't find any that made the news…..
Not as uncommon as we might wish. Insulting? Yes, absolutely. Too much caution? Maybe. Unprecedented? No, especially since Vietnam.
The timing and execution of this decision caught the media's attention, and they blew on that little spark until the flames appeared.
Leatherneck
I wonder if they even took away their P-38 John Waynes?
They're deadly devices. I can attest to that.
Toejam
If you cannot trust the Marines to know who is the enemy and who is not, then who can ….
Oops! I see my mistake.
Never mind.
stay safe.
Well… Panetta had just showed his contempt for the military again by wholeheartedly talking up Obama's decision to reduce the number of soldiers and marines by 100,000. This, after said soldiers and marines have been at war for the past 10 years. Surely, he is not a popular fellow with them.
Also, while I generally trust the enlisted Marines, some of their General Officers have definitely been flaky the past couple of decades. Witness their witch hunts of their own troops. No wonder another GO was a tad nervous.
I've a friend currently in the Army who offered this analysis:
"There was also a security breach that morning on the airfield that had not been resolved when Panetta arrived. The restriction of arms was an added precaution. Nothing to do with trusting marines or soldiers. The military does not make policy, it executes orders and directions with the assets available. There are only so many service members.
I was not there but I assure you this; weapons were taken away as they entered the tent/building, which I am sure was secured by armed guards. Once the troops left, weapons were returned promptly. You are armed 24/7 in a combat zone and exposing the troops to a few minutes of risk, on a 'secured' base out weights the political advantage gained had Panetta been killed (not that he was at risk or even a target because the breach was probably a freak coincidence)."