Replies

John M. Szelog puts it best in one of his articles "The Air Force has this idea that support personnel don't need to be well-trained in the use of weapons. Part of that idea stems from the popular notion that the Army and the Marines will protect us if the USAF Security Police can't handle the situation (tell that to anybody in the Army or Marines, and you'll get a puzzled look, or maybe a laugh in return.)

Money, as usual, is the biggest factor, exacerbated by two other trends: the overall military force drawdowns, and the combined attitude of Air Force leaders towards their own personnel, and of many personnel towards being required to carry and use weapons.

Normally, many Air Force people would have a hard time remembering the difference between the muzzle and the butt of a rifle, let alone how to safely handle the weapon. In peacetime, this doesn't present a problem, because who needs rifles when we have the Security Police?

But this gets sticky when you throw in deployments to overseas locations where there aren't a lot of reliable or friendly military units around, or the current use of military personnel as domestic security forces.

When a unit arrives at an overseas site, all of a sudden there is a need for a lot of people to carry weapons to guard aircraft, equipment and the airfield itself - but the higher-ups are stuck. There aren't enough Security Police to do the job, so commanders are forced to issue support personnel rifles and pistols, even though very few of them are actually proficient in handling their weapons safely and effectively.

The logical compromise between the two unacceptable extremes - either having nobody trained at all, or having the entire Air Force armed to the teeth - is to encourage personnel to volunteer for weapons proficiency.

But this is where the other problem - an attitude problem - comes into play. (The Army and Marine Corps get around this attitude problem, in part, by requiring everyone to stay trained and proficient.)

Many Air Force people will tell you to your face that they didn't join the service to carry a rifle. They'll also tell you that unless the Air Force orders them to carry a rifle, they will refuse to do so.

That's not all: Not only do they not want to carry a weapon, but they get very jittery and suspicious when somebody else volunteers to carry a weapon, or even wants to get fully-trained and qualified in case the need ever arises.

The logic of this attitude, if you can call it logic, goes like this: If you don't think about situations where you might need a weapon, then those situations won't happen. Likewise, somebody else carrying a weapon is an invitation for a situation where you will need to use a weapon, so don't let anybody else carry a weapon."

The services are not a trade union... I rest my case.