BULLETS? We don't need no steenkin' BULLETS!!
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.
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.
“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.
Unless the weapon is cocked on an empty chamber, this isn't mechanically possible with this weapon.
IIRC, when the USS Cole got hit with the boat bomb, the ROE at the time was that the deck guards had no ammo.
Commanders have ordered a U.S. military unit in Afghanistan to patrol with unloaded weapons, according to a source in Afghanistan.
Incorrect. Weapons are loaded, but do not have a round chambered, very different from having an unloaded weapon. The report referred to a single unit, perhaps in a single situation; it does not apply to all units in Afghanistan as far as I know.
Armchair warriors are free to argue whether this makes sense or not, but the arguments and comments ought to be based on the facts, not on the fairy tale in this article. I personally could go either way: Good idea, bad idea. Which side I would take would be based on the specific situation on the ground and the mission being conducted by this unit which I don't know. The source of the report is Michael Yon, the most credible war correspondent of his generation, so I'd certainly like to know more.
So what's wrong with "Cocked and Locked"?
This is part of the media's agenda of "heroic restraint" for oDumbo, and the UN. It also appears "made up".
IMHO the Regime (and I’m not just referring to the current Syndicate, AKA “Administration” here either; it goes waaaay back) is setting our military up to be seriously decimated, if not exterminated, so that they will be unable to defend AMERICANS against the coming Jihad.
In order to prevent a loss of power from an election that they may not be able to steal and which might not go well for the Global Ruling Elite, I expect that some “emergency” - arranged or coincidental - will be exploited in order to impose “martial law” and suspend our Constitution... or what’s left of it.
I’m not counting on our “Oath Keepers” much, since it likely won’t be AMERICAN troops enforcing executive orders on American Civilians... especially Anglos, Christians, and Jews.
Call me a looney conspiracy theorist if you want to; I’m used to it; But there is plenty of what I consider to be compelling evidence to support such speculation.
U.S. Soldiers are totally disarmed stateside unless on a training range, leaving them vulnerable to mass casualty attacks along the order of Nidal Hassan; only he was just ONE Jihaddi working alone.
What could a Company - or given the 35 Jihad training camps here in America and our porous border, a Regiment - of trained, combat hardened and heavilly armed Hamaas or Hezbullah suicide fighters do to a US military base?
How long would “Civilian Contractor Security” police hold out against LMGS, mortars, and RPGs? Our troops would be sitting ducks... or a herd of sheep, all penned in and awaiting the slaughter.
Alas; I opine that that’s exactly what they are supposed to be.
Don’t count out a replay of what Stalin did to about a third of his own Red Army whose loyalty he questioned.
You don’t think that Hussein and his Czars would conduct just such a “Purge” if given the opportunity and felt the need to eliminate the possibility of a coup and maintain their unlawful, unconstitutional, tyrannical rule?
OK; so I’m nutz; but I smell something sinister afoot, and I’m concerned that our US military is being intentionally set up for something.
...And it ain’t gonna be pretty.
I’ve been pondering this, and I can imagine situations where not having a round in the chamber would be desirable.
The first situation is while inside a friendly area, such as a camp, when performing routine duties, such as vehicle maintenance, carrying loads, etc., where a rifle gets in the way. In this case, having a rifle and bullets, nearby, or carried, but you are on support duty.
Second is while being transported in a vehicle, where an accidental discharge could be catastrophic. In a helicopter, for example, rifle barrels are facing down. The same with unarmored troop truck transport, with lots of vibration and bumps.
Third is a rifle that is prone to accidental discharge. The old M-16 was very prone to this. If the trigger was ‘pulled on’ with a round in the chamber and the safety on, it had a habit of, when taken off safety, to discharge a round without an additional, full trigger pull.
The current rifle, the M-4, is very similar in basic design, to the M-16, so likely still has this problem. This is the type of malfunction that would happen a lot while on a patrol.
Fourth is if the patrol was near to an area where non-hostile weapons were being discharged. As a rule of thumb, before a patrol, it is a wise idea to test fire weapons, to insure that they, and the ammunition, are functional. This is part of the regular checks done before a patrol, to include radio tests, etc.
But this means that other soldiers will hear gunfire, and not know that it is not hostile. If they are able to immediately fire their rifle, they might do so. (Which is why it is good to do test fires in an area out of direct line of sight, hopefully in a ground depression.)
In any event, the possibility exists that the soldiers themselves see the reason for not having a round chambered. Combat soldiers are not shy at all in complaining if they think they have been put at unnecessary risk.
The Obama/Liberal appear weak to make friends and get their asses kicked diplomacy model.
Obama is nothing but a skinny little kid who is in way over his head.
BULLETS? We don't need no steenkin' BULLETS!!