Replies

Who To Blame For Disarming Our Soldiers?
Saturday, 14 November 2009 09:15 | Author: Ralph Weller | PDF Print E-mail

Despite the media, it isn’t Clinton. The U.S. Army disarmed their soldiers at least 25 years before Clinton. The blame falls on our military leadership and today’s politicians who don’t recognize we are at war.

In my recent article “Stop the Silliness: Arm Our Soldiers and Marines” I pointed out soldiers in the U.S. Army are essentially unarmed on U.S. military installations, including Fort Hood. The only armed military personnel are law enforcement agencies, most notably military police, and if present, federal law enforcement officers who augment military police agencies on base.

Within a couple days after my article, the Washington Times posted an editorial calling for an end to the Clinton military gun ban on U.S. military bases.

The Washington Times and those who promulgated the above statement are simply wrong. The Army disarmed its soldiers at least 25 years earlier.

I entered active duty in 1971. The only non-MP military personnel that carried loaded firearms were those assigned to guard duty of sensitive base facilities, such as a centralized weapons armory, or the unit paymaster administering cash payments on payday.

On payday an officer of the unit was designated as the paymaster. He would draw a loaded 1911 .45 caliber handgun from the unit armory. His next act would be to receive the cash from the post finance center. He carried the loaded firearm on a pistol belt at all times while administering the pay process.

That was about it for armed soldiers on Fort Hood other than military police. In 1971 it was already illegal for military personnel to carry or store a personal firearm in any place other than a unit armory. Military firearms were only issued specifically for the activities described above, training, or periodic weapons qualification. Soldiers were not allowed to keep a personal or military firearm in either barracks or family housing. That was the case when I entered the army in 1971 and it was the case when I exited 20 years later in 1991 before Clinton.

I can appreciate the desire to blame someone for disarming our soldiers, and Clinton is as good a target as anyone. I didn’t like him then and I don’t like him now, but the army had already disarmed their soldiers long before Clinton. Weapon-less soldiers on U.S. military installations is a matter of fact since Vietnam. It is historical fact that prior to the Vietnam War, military officers, NCOs and, in some cases, soldiers carried firearms as a matter of routine going back to the formation of this country.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Army has become a “kinder and gentler” army. After all, who needs a firearm for protection on a U.S. military facility?

To that point, Fort Hood’s commanding general, Lt. Gen. Robert Cone on November 5 said in response to a reporter’s question, “As a matter of practice, we do not carry weapons — this is our home.”

If you didn’t hear General Cone’s response, he was not making a coy statement of disgust for not being allowed to arm his soldiers. His response was clearly a statement of disgust for someone even asking such a question and he placed emphasis on the words “… this is our home” to drive the point home that our soldiers should not be armed.

General Cone far exceeded the rank I achieved, but in my home at least I recognize that I have a duty to protect my family. My home is armed, politicians and political correctness be damned. The home of army soldiers and marines should be armed as well.

We are engaged in a war with an enemy that has infiltrated our country and by their own admission openly promote a ‘Jihad’ against our military. Military installations are primary targets. If they didn’t know before, now every Jihadist Muslim in this country knows how utterly vulnerable our military installations are. Disarming a primary target may be politically correct to appease the brass in Washington D.C. or politicians, but it foolishly makes targets of military personnel.

After September 11, 2001 our military should have been placed on maximum alert recognizing 9-11 as an act of war on our country. This should have been re-affirmed again after the arrest of the Muslim immigrants who plotted an attack on Fort Dix in recent years. Our military facilities and, most specifically, our military personnel are a prime target. Maintaining an anti-gun position of disarmament is nothing less than dereliction of an officer’s duty to protect the lives of their soldiers and incompetence on the part of our politicians.

Politicians and federal agencies are running for cover blaming each other while looking for the low-level scapegoats they can blame to protect political appointees, high level bureaucrats and politicians. The blame falls squarely on politicians and military leadership for allowing our military bases to be so vulnerable to attack. One person with a couple of handguns killed or wounded more people in one day on a U.S. military base than is generally seen in one day of combat in Iraq or Afghanistan combined. It’s easy to blame Hasan. After all he committed the terrorist act. But, don’t stop there. Start looking at the leadership of our military and those politicians who continue to support the notion that an unarmed soldier is a safer soldier.