"At least he's safe there"--in Afghanistan--"and he can fire back, right?"

[TPaine7]

So says the wife of a soldier shot at Fort Hood:

ROBERTS: And, Mandy, how are you feeling about that?

M. FOSTER: At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?

ROBERTS: At least he'll be able to do that if somebody comes after him.

Private Foster, Mandy Foster, it's so good to talk to you this morning. Again, our condolences. We're glad to hear that you're on the mend and take care of yourselves.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/09/ltm.02.html

That military wife has a point. In civilian America--with the exceptions of certain unconstitutional enclaves, of course--her husband can bear arms to defend himself and innocent people. In war zones, soldiers carry weapons around innocent civilians of other countries. Why are they considered untrustworthy on military bases?

Among President Clinton's first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.

Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. That's why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's rampage.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/?feat=home_editorials

Lest anyone doubt the Washington Times' editorial, here is are some relevant quotes from the regulation, along with a link:

SUMMARY of CHANGE
AR 190–14
Carrying of Firearms and Use of Force for Law Enforcement and Security Duties
This revision--
o Implements applicable portions of Department of Defense Directive 5210.56.
o Clearly establishes minimum qualification requirements for military police
and Department of the Army law enforcement and security personnel (para 2-3).
o Expands authorization documentation options for authorizing officials (para
2-4).
o Limits and controls the carrying of firearms by Department of the Army
military and civilian personnel (para 2-6).
o Prohibits the carrying of non-Government owned or issued weapons or
ammunition (para 2-6).

...

2–4. Authorization documentation
...

d. DA Personnel not regularly assigned to law enforcement or
security duties may carry firearms only for the duration of specific
assignments....

...

2–6. Restrictions on carrying firearms
...

b . Only Government-owned, and Government-issued weapons
and ammunition are authorized to be carried by DA personnel while
performing official duties. The Secretary of the Army may authorize
a n e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t f o r A r m y i n v e s t i g a t i v e
organizations.

Source: http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r190_14.pdf

What do you think? Should Clinton's anti-gun regulation be overturned? Is Mandy Foster right, or should military personnel be ordered to be sitting ducks for any terrorist who can get onto a base (which is not that difficult)?

[HALO141]

1. Yes, yes and no. n/t

[Arctic Dave]

2. In 16 years one act of a mass shooting with a person who gave every type of

red flag other then handing out flyers the the day before he goes postal. Yes, we must reverse the Clinton era regulation asap.
After all, this was a criminal with an illegal gun. Oh wait, this is not true. He was a legal gun owner with a legally owned gun. So the moral of the story is that ALL gun owners are potential mass shooters and we must arm ourselves? Is this what you are saying?

[TPaine7]

4. Hmm

Let's think this through.

1) What were the problems with guns on base before 1993? Can you think of any mass shootings, for example? If not, Clinton solve a non-existent problem to satisfy his aversion to guns.

2) Yes he was a legal gun owner. Religious fanatics, unlike many other felons, often have no criminal records prior to their terrorism. Two solutions present themselves: we could disarm all of the men and women we depend on to protect us and have them be sitting ducks, or we could allow them to defend themselves.

3) In the absurd abstract, all gun owners (single shot muzzle loader owners and the like excepted, of course) are potential mass shooters. In the real world, very few will actually seriously consider such actions. Should we disarm the mass of innocent soldiers in a vain attempt to disarm the lone lunatic? How well did that work here?

4) Unfortunately, this case has alerted Islamic fanatics and anti-American warrior wannabees to a major vulnerability. Foreign or domestic cells or lone lunatics could see this as a golden opportunity to strike at THE PRIME TARGET. As a matter of fact, if a foreign operative committed a mass shooting on a US base, it would be questionable if it was actually terrorism--is a strike against the enemies military terrorism?

[Arctic Dave]

5. "his aversion to guns" You know this how?

How do you know it wasn't the military that requested this? I've seen no outcry from the military to change the rules since then.

Religious fanatics? Why only religious fanatics. How many other mass shooters were religious fanatics but were legal gun owners? Again it has been sixteen years without incident so now we need to arm everyone instead of doing a better job of weeding out "disgruntled employees".

If all gun owners in the "absurd abstract" are potential mass shooters then why arm yourself for it. If the likely hood of it happening is also an absurd abstract?

As for #4, the military will always be a target. No more or less then the people they target.

[TPaine7]

7. It just makes sense

"his aversion to guns" You know this how?

How do you know it wasn't the military that requested this?

I don't know it as a fact, but it stands to reason. The military doesn't need permission from the President to make a lot of policy, and it doesn't make sense to me that they requested that their power be limited. I can't see anyone from a squad commander to the commanding general of a base to a military chief of staff asking to have his power limited. It's incomprehensible.

I do know that Clinton despised guns. He wanted to violate the 4th Amendment to search people's houses for guns. Adding it all up, I reached a logical conclusion.

I've seen no outcry from the military to change the rules since then.

Not surprising. Outcry from the military, at least public outcry, is very much frowned upon.

Religious fanatics? Why only religious fanatics. How many other mass shooters were religious fanatics but were legal gun owners?

Ok, let's add ideological fanatics. Timothy McVeigh was an ideological fanatic. Religiously motivated fanatics are the type most likely to specifically target US service persons.

Again it has been sixteen years without incident so now we need to arm everyone instead of doing a better job of weeding out "disgruntled employees".

And there were 200+ years where soldiers had the (sometimes infringed) right to keep and bear arms off base and apparently no countervailing orders on base. And those years were at least ostensibly without incident.

Freedom is the American (and logical) default; if neither of two possible options causes issues, we should always go with freedom. Why limit freedom and flexibility for no reason? But that's apparently what Clinton did.

The actual situation, however, is not close to even. If 200+ years of liberal firearms possession policy on base caused no issues but we had a problem after only 13 years of restrictive policy, wouldn't that indicate the wisdom of liberal military gun policy?

If all gun owners in the "absurd abstract" are potential mass shooters then why arm yourself for it. If the likely hood of it happening is also an absurd abstract?

Two reasons. First, the absurdity levels are not remotely comparable. The odds of a given soldier, if allowed to be armed, being a good guy able to react to a lunatic's shooting spree are many times greater than the odds of a given soldier perpetrating a mass shooting. Even if we ignore that fact, your logic fails to account for a point in the post you responded to. You assume that Islamic cells will not react to the information they gleaned from this situation. That is an assumption no military commander--the Commander-in-Chief included--should make.

As for #4, the military will always be a target.

Our policies should be designed to make them as poor a target as possible, wouldn't you agree?

[PavePusher]

9. There is an outcry.

"How do you know it wasn't the military that requested this? I've seen no outcry from the military to change the rules since then."

But it is not public (yet), being done through channels and the chain of command (until/unless it fails) and will not be publicized (except as an extreme measure if all else fails).

That's the way things are done in the military.

[Arctic Dave]

10. Link?

[PavePusher]

11. No link available.

I am working up a proposal to submit to my chain of command. I'm also going to be submitting some letters to local and national publications at the appropriate time, if required.

You don't get things like this done in the military, from my level of rank, by splashing them straight to the MSM. You keep that option as the "big stick" last resort, 'cause it's really gonna piss of everyone above you, especially if you blind-side them.

There are methods.

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. Sounds like someone does not trust the troops.

[rrneck]

6. This caught my eye.

"only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones"

Which administration should we blame for that?

[TPaine7]

8. Bush. And the terrorists who brought us 9/11.

The terrorist are responsible for Afghanistan; Bush for Iraq.

[one-eyed fat man]

12. Federal Protective Service

and civilian contractors do a lot of the 'routine security' functions and this trend started almost 30 years ago.

Let me try to explain what happened and why. Back in the day of $78 a month draftees, all those mundane housekeeping tasks like gate guards, interior guard, grounds and building maintenance, stacking shelves in the commissary, janitorial service, peeling potatoes, ALL the mundane and menial tasks required to make an installation house and feed itself were all accomplished by soldiers. The Army consisted of 16 divisions; there were a half million soldiers in Viet Nam, nearly that many in Germany.

Since then more and more of those tasks which do not involve 'closing with the enemy and destroying by fire and maneuver' have been civilianized. In the 1990s the Army dropped from 780000 to 480000 active duty end strength. The current authorized end strength for the Army is 512,400 soldiers of ALL ranks. To maximize the percentage of those in uniform whose job is to actually FIGHT, more and more of the support functions have been outsourced. That is why on every post not in a combat area the cooks are civilian contractors. The folks who fix the broken windows in the barracks are civilians. Often, the doctor in the troop medical clinic is a civilian and not a medical corps officer. The guy checking your ID card at the main gate, is a civilian and not an MP. In advanced individual training, while a Drill Sergeant might politely request you "get your goat-smelling ass" out of a bunk in the morning, and march you and your classmates to class, civilian instructors for technical subjects are not uncommon.

In every community where there is a sizable military installation, those civilian positions are jealously guarded by the local Congressman. Soldiers get orders, they come and they go. But that civilian job is there forever. Soldiers are deployable, civilians stay put.....and vote.

[SteveM]

13. Good post. Thanks (nt)

[rrneck]

15. You have a good point

and I don't necessarily disagree.

Soldiering is hard dangerous work in peacetime never mind when some sumbitch is shooting at you. We all have a responsibility to our troops to help them do their jobs and keep them safe and healthy while they do them during and after they leave the service. It occurs to me that communities of civilians living and working with military personnel is good for both groups. Exclusive enclaves can have a corrosive effect on any society. Civilians working with soldiers to provide for the common defense is certainly beneficial.

The notion of outsourcing non combat functions to civilian contractors is just fine. The notion of monetizing those functions causes problems. We have created the greatest empire in history and we can't afford it. We don't have the money to pay for it or the political will to recruit a sufficient number of professional soldiers to man it. Cue Blackwater:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/world/middleeast/11blackwater.html?_r=1

WASHINGTON — Top executives at Blackwater Worldwide authorized secret payments of about $1 million to Iraqi officials that were intended to silence their criticism and buy their support after a September 2007 episode in which Blackwater security guards fatally shot 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad, according to former company officials.

The military industrial complex has gotten so out of control that it has less to do with defending the Constitution of the United Stated and more to do with defending the profit margins of multinational corporations. And worse, war making has become the biggest growth industry in this country. National defense is not much different from self defense. They both involve killing people. It is wrong to profit from human misery. Too many people in too many communities live in fear of losing their jobs (and their health care) if an arms manufacturer downsizes. I'll say it again; it is wrong to profit from human misery.

We have to provide for the common defense of our country and some of our best and brightest have chosen to do exactly that. The problems that our armed forces are suffering are the same as those that are wrecking our civilian workforce. They are being sacrificed at the alter of maximized productivity. Why? Because of a national emergency or a foreign invasion? No. Our troops are suffering so some rich motherfucker in Manhattan (or Dubai) can have ice in his scotch and shit in a gold plated toilet.

It seems to me that it's a bloody damn shame that our military is so overworked and stressed that we let a U.S. Army major break down and kill thirteen soldiers and we didn't have the personnel to oversee him or the force protection to stop him after we ran him into the ground.

[one-eyed fat man]

16. since yesterday was Veteran's Day

According to the US Census Bureau, the current US veteran population, including non-combat veterans 24,387,000. Their median age is 57.4. Since soldiering is generally a young man's occupation, it is not hard to see that the majority of vets did their service 30 years ago, or longer.

No big mystery there when you recall that the draft ended in 1972. For those who came of age during that era, for men anyway, military service was pretty much a common and virtually universal experience. Even famous people went! In 1958, Elvis Presley did his time, in the 2nd Armor Division at Fort Hood, and later, in Germany, as a scout in a tank battalion, he impressed a young LT. Colin Powell.

With the US population now at 304,059,724, roughly 92% of the population's only military experience has been avoidance. While you may envision "communities of civilians living and working with military personnel" many, if not most of those civilians, are retired military and military family members.

The divide between those who served and those who burned their draft cards and spit on GI's a generation ago did not go away. That those peace-loving, children of the Sixties have grown into prominence as stalwarts of the Democratic Party and inculcated their offspring with the notion that military service is beneath them is the reason Kerry's gaff burned through the military; it rang all too true.


Soldiers do their duty because it is their duty and they are soldiers. Kipling really did get it right.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

[rrneck]

17. I agree. Well said. nt

[JonQ]

14. It struck me as absurd that we don't trust our armed forces

to carry guns.

Maybe give them whistles so they can alert the police if anything scary is happening?

[TheWraith]

18. That Washington Times bullshit is just bullshit.

DOD regulations have prevented troops from carrying arms on base except as specified by their duties going back at least to the 1970s.

Also, I'd point out to Ms. Foster that "safe" and "able to shoot back" are rather contradictory statements.

[spin]

19. If my memory serves me...

troops on the stateside bases I was stationed at were not allowed to carry arms unless they were Air Police. This was in the sixties at the height of the Viet Nam conflict.