Posted on 05/23/2010 12:13:09 PM PDT by Fight4Freedom1
Commanders have ordered a U.S. military unit in Afghanistan to patrol with unloaded weapons, according to a source in Afghanistan.
American soldiers in at least one unit have been ordered to conduct patrols without a round chambered in their weapons, an anonymous source stationed at a forward operating base in Afghanistan said in an interview. The source was unsure where the order originated or how many other units were affected.
When a weapon has a loaded magazine, but the safety is on and no round is chambered, the military refers to this condition as “amber status.” Weapons on “red status” are ready to fire—they have a round in the chamber and the safety is off.
The source stated that he had been stationed at the base for only a month, but the amber weapons order was in place since before he arrived. A NATO spokesman could not confirm the information, stating that levels of force are classified.
“Our overall aim is to defeat the insurgency which means we must gain and then maintain the support of the Afghan population,” said Lieutenant Commander Iain Baxter, a spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in a statement to HUMAN EVENTS. “This must be the objective of every action taken by ISAF service members, and it calls for responses that de-escalate situations where the use of deadly force may not be necessary. In doing this, leaders at all levels make enormous efforts to ensure that troops balance their own protection with the protection of the Afghan population.”
If there was a spate of friendly-fire casualties, then perhaps a change in the company's rules would make sense. ISAF keeps no records of negligent discharges, however a search of casualties in Afghanistan showed only three fatalities due to friendly fire since January 2009...
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
I could see such an order if it was for walking around the camp, post or base...but on patrol? This would violate training ethics that most guys have established in their mind over the past decade.
Forget learning the lessons of 9/11, we obviously haven't learned the lessons of the USS Cole yet.
Really stupid, seems to me. Have there been incidents of soldiers accidentally discharging their weapons? Probably a lot more cops here in the states having that problem than warriors in the theater of battle.
As long as they are loaded mags, I don’t feel too bad. But then they are in conditions which get hot real fast, so.. Stupid rule.
Didn’t they have dumbass rules like this during Viet Nam? Maybe I should ask Blumenthal.
That has to be the damn stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of.
God help our GIs......
“Our overall aim is to defeat the insurgency which means we must gain and then maintain the support of the Afghan population,”
And the idea is to let them know we are walking around targets is really going to win their hearts and minds.
Here’s a news flash. You are never going to defeat the insurgency pussy footing around trying to win friends with the Afghan population. The enemy has one tactic, and that’s to terrify. The only way to stop them is to kill them dead.
next we will be putting daisy flowers in the barrel.
What in the world is going on, win this thing or come home quit sacrificing a generation of warriors.
I’m with you. On the base is one thing, but leaving the fence line without a round in the chamber is stupid.
“Our overall aim is to defeat the insurgency which means we must gain and then maintain the support of the Afghan population,”
No, it means you must close with and destroy the enemy. Civic Action is one thing, patroling is another. If you’re in an area where you need to be carrying a weapon, it needs to be ready to use. Having to take time to charge your rifle means that you’ve given the enemy time to empty an entire magazine at you.
This foolishness is going to result in dead G.I.s.
Asking a soldier to patrol an active hostile area carrying a weapon with no rounds violates any rules of war. You have created a situation in which the soldier is a legitimate legal war target without giving him any means to fight back or defend himself. This is against the rules of war.
I know the enemy would probably fire weather or not the soldier is ‘armed’ (and I say that lightly) but it is known that soldiers will shoot the threat first, i.e., an armed person. An unarmed soldier is less likely to garner the immediate ‘with extreme violence’ response.
An unarmed soldier is not a soldier, he is simply a target.
“The enemy has one tactic, and that’s to terrify. The only way to stop them is to kill them dead.”
Ditto this!
Or the result of unloaded weapons at the Marine Barracks in Lebanon.
Guys that I knew then who went into the Parrot's Beak in '71-'72 had these same rules. They literally had to run when someone started firing on them, because typically they had so little ammunition that they could not do anything more than fire a few shots in retreat.
You could have pushed me over with a feather when I heard that from one of them.
Unless the weapon is cocked on an empty chamber, this isn't mechanically possible with this weapon.
Prez Johnson and McNamara ordered the troops in ‘Nam to keep our weapons unloaded when on guard duty or on patrol, even. You know, we “dumb ass” draftees and RAs were smart enough totally ignore that order (what were they gonna do send us to ‘Nam?) , and I’ll bet the troops of today will ignore it, too.
IIRC, when the USS Cole got hit with the boat bomb, the ROE at the time was that the deck guards had no ammo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.