Depressing Real Life Heroism
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing]
From a game called Medal of Honor, to real life heroes, DRJ directs us to some of the testimony in the Ft. Hood shooting case where we see some of the heroism that emerged that day. I dare say that at least some of these acts might qualify for a medal of honor. The money quote:
Amid the carnage described Friday were moments of heroism. Spc. Logan Burnett said he saw Capt. John Gaffaney try to attack Hasan with a chair before he was shot and killed. Burnett said he also tried to throw a folding table at Hasan, but was shot in the hip before he could throw it. Burnett was shot another two times as he crawled to safety.
CW2 Christopher Royal testified that he saw Hasan chase another soldier, Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, out of the building and shoot him before going back inside. Royal said that Hasan left the building again shortly after and began shooting at him, hitting him in the back. Royal said he saw Hasan move toward a crowded theater hosting a graduation ceremony.
“I ran to try to get there before he got there,” he said. Royal was able to tell soldiers at the theater to lock up the building.
There is plenty more coverage of the trial, here. But the depressing thing in reading all of that is it also makes it clear how unnecessary these deaths were. Reading of these soldiers having to hide behind locked doors, having to resort to throwing chairs in the hope of stopping him, it reminds you of an absolutely insane fact: this military base was a gun-free zone. It illustrates exactly how easily this whole thing would have been stopped if only everyone was allowed to carry a gun. And no, I am not the first person to notice.
From the missed warning signs to this gun-free idiocy, it is clear that our military bureaucracy failed those soldiers in Ft. Hood, not only failing to protect them but positively impairing their ability to protect themselves. Their heroism is an indictment on that bureaucracy.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Also curious from the testimony is that of a soldier who filmed parts of the attack on his cell phone and then was later ordered by his “superiors” to delete it. Is that, like, destruction of critical evidence? Why in heaven’s name would an Army officer order something like that to be deleted?
bfwebster (b19c89) — 10/16/2010 @ 3:40 pmThat’s the same thing that struck me about this testimony, Aaron. As for the cell phone story, I’m not certain but my impression was that the soldier had filmed the aftermath of the shooting. If so, I’m sure there were official photos taken by the investigators so I can see how the military would not want photos of this — possibly including deceased personnel — floating around out there.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/16/2010 @ 3:53 pmGeneral Casey showed why he was a disaster in Iraq with his statements about this case. Above the level of colonel, about 85% of the people are politicians.
Mike K (568408) — 10/16/2010 @ 3:58 pmEven though I often disagreed with his tactics, I am sure that many at the highest levels of the Pentagon are really glad that the late Col. David Hackworth (USA-Ret) is no longer with us to skewer the idiocy of the disarmament policy imposed upon our military bases (and those that created it), and the resulting deaths and casualties that should have never happened.
Michelle Obama (0b4928) — 10/16/2010 @ 4:43 pmI’m a dummy!
AD-RtR/OS! (0b4928) — 10/16/2010 @ 4:45 pmForgot to change handles after a post yesterday.
Sorry. #4 is moi!
The brass never learns. In the Philipine campaign against the Moros in the early 1900’s, a one company Army post was attacked early one Sunday morning. Most of the troops were either in church or the mess hall. Their weapons were in their barracks. The Moros killed the gate guards and attacked the officer’s quarters, killing all the company officers. The enlisted men shut the doors and placed tables and pews against the windows in the church and mess hall to keep the Moros out. All they had was the kitchen implements and candlesticks to use as weapons. Luckly, there were some troops that were not either at the church or messhall. These sackrats armed themselves and started firing at the Moros. Under this fire, some troops exited windows in the messhall and made it to the barracks. they armed themselves and carried additional rifles and ammo back to the mess hall. The tide of battle turned as the men in the church were able to get to the barracks and arm themselves. The Moros were all killed by the armed troops. Yet, even now, Army posts are “weapons-free zones.”
Longwalker (996c34) — 10/16/2010 @ 4:46 pmEarlier Friday under cross examination, Pfc. Lance Aviles said he used his cell phone to record the rampage inside the processing center but was ordered by an officer to delete both videos later the same day. Aviles was not asked if he knew why the officer ordered the videos destroyed. It’s unclear exactly what the footage showed, although it could have been used as evidence in the case….”
Andy McCarthy looks at this and questions why a Grand Jury isn’t being immediately convened if the military is not investigating. The implications are awful as he states because this administration will will not go near it.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/16/2010 @ 4:53 pm
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/16/2010 @ 4:56 pmhttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/249998/willful-blinding-andy-mccarthy
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/249998/willful-blinding-andy-mccarthy
McCarthy link.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/16/2010 @ 4:59 pmAt the risk of annoying Patterico (although that’s not my reason), hear, hear, Aaron.
I never thought of that like that. With a background of Canadian military (infantry, reserves) and a mostly gun-free country, at least so far as legal day-to-day carry goes), I just assumed lack of carrying a firearm as normal.
In truth, considering the situation, my mind did turn to violence (“What would I do in that circumstances?” etc.) and in my imagination, I was engaging either unarmed or with impromptu weapons. It literally never occurred to me to have a firearm on me because I know that I wouldn’t in Canada and wouldn’t have had one on a in-Canada army base.
So that was a massive blind spot in my thinking.
You’ve shown a light on it. With your country’s laws and traditions, I fail to see why a soldier who is not under disqualifying disciplinary nor medical condition, shouldn’t have be allowed to carry a personal sidearm (at least) on base.
But not recruits: they’re not tested and they can go a bit loco.
Christoph (8ec277) — 10/16/2010 @ 5:30 pmbased on my observations during my 20 years, 9 months and some very odd days in the CA ARNG and USAR, the Army, like all organizations, has some really stupid policies, and is managed by some incredibly stupid people.
i believe this is attributable to “Red’s Law of Advancement”, which is based on simple physics:
Gold sinks and shit floats.
part of the problem is the combination of the “up or out” promotion policy, where you are not allowed to stay at a level where you are comfortable and competent, but must continually either advance or get out.
this pressure, coupled with the “zero defect” mentality where even the slightest error, by your or those you are responsible for results in a less than perfect evaluation that kills your chances for the necessary promotion, thus ending your career, incentivises micromanagement, to the detriment of common sense.
the elevation of image over performance is also a problem: all too often i saw the parade ground poster child put in charge of things they had no knowledge of or ability to do because they looked the part. Yes, you can both look and be good, but elevating a neatness fetish over basic compliance with appearance regs at the expense of tactical and technical competence is just stupid, yet is is routinely done.
disclaimer: i went in as an E-3, made E-4 a year later, and retired with 19 years, 9 months in grade, so i have a somewhat jaundiced perspective on things.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 10/16/2010 @ 5:30 pmOn a military base, a gun-free zone, like a gun-mandatory zone, is where the commanding officers says it is.
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 10/16/2010 @ 5:31 pmWhy should we be surprised at anything that this Administration does in the criminal justice field;
AD-RtR/OS! (0b4928) — 10/16/2010 @ 5:33 pmeither through the auspices of the DoJ, or under the UCMJ.
Their corruption borders on Treason!
something to remember: if you are ever, G*d forbid, in one of these events, the most useful, easily found field expedient weapon to look for is the nearest dry chemical fire extinguisher.
they are ubiquitous and the powder is more effective than tear gas, has a longer reach and will also serve as a smoke screen of sorts if you can’t actually reach the shooter.
not only that, but if you can hit the shooter with a direct blast to the face, you can brain the SOB with the canister, and then take his weapon. just make sure s/he’s deader ‘n shit when you leave them.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 10/16/2010 @ 5:35 pmME: Then we know who to bring to account, don’t we?
AD-RtR/OS! (0b4928) — 10/16/2010 @ 5:35 pmNot protecting the men and women under his command…
Isn’t that Dereliction of Duty?
There are reasons why military weapons are locked up and troops are not allowed to carry them around off duty. That has been the case since we had a standing army. For one thing, the weapons might disappear. Personally owned sidearms are another matter. The real scandal is why this man was not removed from his position and from the Army. Lots of people knew what his thoughts were. He was known to be counseling returned troops that they had done wrong in Afghanistan. He was nuts and causing harm. The incredible PC force in the Army is what caused this. And that force is still there to alter the prosecution.
Mike K (568408) — 10/16/2010 @ 5:44 pm________________________________________
but was ordered by an officer to delete both videos later the same day.
I’d previously never have theorized that such a command was possibly due to the officer being embarrassed at making a sad, poor, dejected person of Middle-Eastern, pro-Islamic origins look bad. Or that the officer was sheepish about allowing videoed images that would further remind people of nonsensical political correctness reaching its logical extreme within the confines of the military environment at Fort Hood.
The other thread on allowing homosexuals/bisexuals into the military made me aware of just how absurd “lefty”, pro-political-correct biases have become in no less than even the US military.
All this together makes me realize that the influence of “liberalism means we’re compassionate, tolerant, beautiful, generous, humane and sophisticated!” has dumbed down more portions of this society than even I would have predicted several years ago.
Mark (411533) — 10/16/2010 @ 6:14 pmThe Koran is a terrorist traning manual. Allah is a pimp.
highpockets (d42ce5) — 10/16/2010 @ 6:41 pmIsn’t that obstruction of justice?
Christoph (8ec277) — 10/16/2010 @ 6:54 pmFirst rule of the chain of command, CYA.
I suspect the video was ordered erased because it might show something that isn’t in the “official” story.
My 3 year tour in the security department of a NAS will fill a book with some stupid regs, including more the one senior officer wanting the security department disarmed.
And then there were the guards at Beruit with unloaded weapons………
Gerald A (3e2219) — 10/16/2010 @ 7:16 pmred
Google, “the peter principle.” It describes pretty much what you are saying.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/16/2010 @ 7:55 pmWow.
Christoph (8ec277) — 10/16/2010 @ 8:05 pm“more the one senior officer wanting the security department disarmed.”
It seems to me that once you disarm a military Security Dept., it ceases being a Security Dept.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/16/2010 @ 8:33 pmI spent a lot of time in the Army. The officers in most service support units, and the Military Police in particular, do not trust their own soldiers with guns, let alone anyone else’s soldiers. The MP’s matter because they are the source whence comes the Provost Marshal who sets a base’s gun policy, and the “experts” who were behind the writing of AR 190-11 (which bans privately owned weapons) and AR 190-14 (which bans even many law enforcement weapons). Base commanders usually defer to their PM and very seldom change hoary old base gun policies, unless they’re personally gun-grabbers and want to tighten them.
Remember, the Army fights for democracy, but does not exemplify it. An Army base is a cradle-to-grave socialist system that a Mapai kibbutznik or East German apparatchik might envy.
Until the present war, most service and service support units fired a maximum of forty rounds a year on a rifle range, if they didn’t pencil-whip their annual qualification. Combat units might have gotten a few more rounds. The only exceptions were special operations forces, and even they never got their actual ammo request.
Yes, the guards at the Marine barracks in Beirut had empty magazine wells. The SF guys in country at the same time always went armed. Strange, but the SF camp never got hit by direct fire or suicide attacks. Things are much less broken now, but the Army is still full of bright people who can’t imagine an enemy being smart enough to prefer a soft target. Therefore, it offers plenty of soft targets.
Remember, Hasan was excited by the attack by one of his team pulled on a couple members of our team in Little Rock, and that probably played some part in his more effective, but still copy-cat, attack. Had the post commander at Hood done his duty he would have armed his men and women after Little Rock. He didn’t, and his culpability is second only to Hasan’s.
Kevin R.C. O'Brien (326fa9) — 10/16/2010 @ 8:34 pmLet me clarify one thing: the Army regulations do not ban privately-owned weapons per se (although some bases do), they ban the carry of personal weapons. Soldiers who live off-base and even in family quarters are sometimes allowed to own personal weapons. Those weapons must be registered with the MPs, however. Soldiers who live in barracks normally must surrender weapons to the MPs until they transfer out or leave the Army. The MPs thrown them in a locker and let them rust.
Air Force policy was about the same in the 1980s, haven’t been a GI living on an Air Force base since then.
Kevin R.C. O'Brien (326fa9) — 10/16/2010 @ 8:38 pmReal Army Life
too funny NOT to share…. NSFW: Army language through out.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 10/16/2010 @ 8:57 pmSoldiers in Basic Combat Training are issued their weapons early on, and are required to carry them everywhere other than the latrine. (Some drill sergeants allow soldiers to leave their weapons behind when they attend church on Sundays, but then another soldier in the platoon who isn’t going to that service must be responsible for the weapons. My younger daughter was carrying four M16-A2s one Sunday, because Catholic Mass (which she attended) was at 0800 while the Protestant services were at 1030 or 1100.)
However, while they are carrying weapons, ammunition is strictly controlled. Most of the time they have blanks, which can be a problem in itself, as one of the soldiers in PVT Pico’s unit accidentally discharged her weapon, with a blank, inside a classroom. That was an Article 15!
Another soldier, an assistant platoon guide of all things, decided that it would be cool to keep a live round as a souvenir. Nope, sorry, but he was found out as he was searched when they left the rifle range. Everybody got smoked, and the platoon lost its flag for a few days. (At least they didn’t have to march carrying a mop, as I have seen done.)
Army bases are under guard by the MPs, and ought to be considered safe. Having unaccounted weapons and live ammunition around is not what the Army wants as far as public safety is concerned. Major Hassan was an aberration, something wholly unexpected, but as a practical matter, it would be a lot worse to have a bunch of late teenaged/early twenty-somethings, all subject to hormones and not-quite-adulthood logic carrying loaded weapons when they can always get a Dear John or some other bad news.
Maybe someone could have put down Major Hassan earlier than was the case, but can you imagine a 19-year-old soldier, in a barracks bay with 59 other guys, getting a letter or call from his girlfriend telling him that she was fornicating with someone else? The odds of that happening are a lot greater than the probabilities of an incident like the one at Fort Hood.
The Army daddy Dana (bd7e62) — 10/17/2010 @ 7:47 amAaron,
from http://www.cmohs.org/medal-faq.php
What are the guidelines for which the medal could be awarded?
On July 25,1963 Congress established a set of guidelines under which the Medal of Honor could be awarded:
a.) while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States;
b.) while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or,
c.) while serving with friendly forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.
The Soldier’s Medal would be more appropriate
VOR2 (83f40a) — 10/17/2010 @ 12:10 pmDana,
Very good points.
VOR2 (83f40a) — 10/17/2010 @ 12:11 pmMajor Hassan was an aberration, something wholly unexpected, but as a practical matter, it would be a lot worse to have a bunch of late teenaged/early twenty-somethings, all subject to hormones and not-quite-adulthood logic carrying loaded weapons when they can always get a Dear John or some other bad news.
While you certainly make a valid point, it’s interesting to note that it is these very same late teenaged/early twenty-somethings, all subject to hormones and not-quite-adulthood logic that we expect to carry those loaded weapons straight into battle. And they are also the same ones who are often serving very far away from home (and familial comfort) when they do receive their Dear John.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/17/2010 @ 12:13 pmDana
Exactly. If we can trust them to go to a foreign country and shoot the right people, how come we can’t trust them when they are here.
That being said, I am all for an older military. I mean I think hard statistics are hard to come by, especially because of how much propaganda is involved, but i think misbehavior of our military was less in WWII than vietnam. And you know what the average age of a military man serving in nam? 19. You know what it was in WWII? 25.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/17/2010 @ 12:22 pmThis further speaks to the not being able to legally drink until one is 21 years of age, and yet again, we permit 18 year olds to march into battle and face death, locked and loaded.
There is a lot of inconsistency but it’s been that way for years. I agree that the age should be raised for our military. Emotional development, maturity, discernment and prudent judgment are just blips on the radar screen in the late teens. (Yet they can drive at 16!)
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/17/2010 @ 12:27 pmComment by Aaron Worthing — 10/17/2010 @ 12:22 pm
The difference in “average age” had a lot to do with the differences in Selective Service procedures –
AD-RtR/OS! (7bc302) — 10/17/2010 @ 12:41 pma lot of family men were drafted in WW-2 that would have received automatic deferments
(if not reclassifications that pretty much guaranteed that you would never be drafted) during ‘Nam;
plus, you were in for “the duration” – nobody had a separation date.
Comment by Dana — 10/17/2010 @ 12:27 pm
Many states (CA among them) have put severe restrictions on the driving activities of those between 16 & 18.
AD-RtR/OS! (7bc302) — 10/17/2010 @ 12:44 pmPerhaps we need to relook at Amendment XXIV, also.
I have no problem with raising the minimum age for military service, although I suspect the military would have a problem, but I don’t view driving and minimum drinking age laws as the same thing. One reason for driving restrictions and for the 21-year-old drinking cutoff is that, at age 21, you are no longer a minor and are legally responsible for yourself. Responsibility and liability are different issues when the activity is legal but the actors are 16-to-20-year-old minor dependents.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/17/2010 @ 1:12 pmAD @ 33, I wonder if, looking at it in a broader context, there was a difference in maturity levels of young men during WWII and Vietnam? The culture had changed so dramatically in that time period, and obviously young people were much more self-absorbed than perhaps the young men of WWII, where life hadn’t yet become so convenient and indulgences were not as available to so many.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/17/2010 @ 1:15 pmOn further thought, I don’t support raising the age for military service unless we also extend the age for mandatory school attendance. Letting 18-year-olds enlist gives them a valuable employment option and a way to fund college or other training. It’s especially important for those who live in areas where there aren’t many jobs for young, unskilled workers and for recessionary times like the one we have now.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/17/2010 @ 1:41 pmMen, and women, who grew to maturity during the Great Depression, dealt with obstacles that are inconceivable to most teen-agers today.
AD-RtR/OS! (7bc302) — 10/17/2010 @ 2:19 pmIt was a different time, and it created different people, with different attitudes on dealing with the world, and people, around them.
I doubt if you would even rarely encounter the self-indulgent, self-centered, young-adults that one finds all too readily in today’s world, particularly in large urban centers.
But, we face a great dichotomy in today’s world, here in America.
AD-RtR/OS! (7bc302) — 10/17/2010 @ 2:25 pmWe tell an 18-years old that they are now an emancipated adult, except we’re going to allow them to stay attached to their parent’s health-care policy;
they are old enough to make contracts, but they can’t purchase a handgun;
they’re old enough to enlist and fight & die for their country, but they can’t buy a beer;
and, Oh Yes, they can now vote, but the level of civic education in the schools they attend doesn’t – with all due respect – rise to the level of abysmal, and then we scratch our heads at the poor choices they make.
AD,
I agree with you that we’ve failed our kids when it comes to education. However, I don’t think they’re so stupid that they can’t comprehend or deal with the rules regarding when they get to drive, drink, buy guns and cigarettes, and vote. Even if society is being hypocritical about these issues (and I don’t think it is), hypocrisy isn’t the worst thing that can happen to a kid.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/17/2010 @ 2:38 pmI don’t think they’re so stupid that they can’t comprehend or deal with the rules regarding when they get to drive, drink, buy guns and cigarettes, and vote.
Clearly, a vast number of them can’t according to NHTS:
• 16-year-olds have higher crash rates than drivers of any other age. It is estimated that 16-year-olds are 3 times more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than the average of all drivers.
Crash scene• 25% of teen drivers killed in 2003 had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or greater. A BAC of .08 is the level which all states define drunk driving.
• $40.8 billion was the estimated economic impact of auto accidents involving 15-20 year old drivers in 2002 (NHTSA).
• Most car accidents are entirely preventable. Drivers are most likely distracted, tired or possibly drunk. The National Highway Safety Traffic Administration reports that most drivers engage in activities that take their attention away from the road. These activities include:
Talking with other passengers: 81%
Playing with the radio or CD: 68%
Eating or drinking: 49%
Using a cell phone: 25%
• The AAA Foundation analysis shows that from 1995 through 2004 crashes involving 15, 16, and 17-year-old drivers claimed the lives of 30,917 people nationwide, of which only 11,177 (36.2%) were the teen drivers themselves. The remaining 19,740 (63.6%) included 9,847 passengers of the teen drivers, 7,477 occupants of other vehicles operated by drivers at least 18 years of age, 2,323 non-motorists. The analysis also shows that 12,413 of these fatalities occurred in single vehicle crashes involving only the vehicle operated by the teenage driver.
• In the decade of the 1990s, 63,000 teens ages 15-19 died in traffic crashes, which is more than 120 each week.
• Two teens in a car increases the likelihood of a crash by 86 percent, three teens by 182 percent, according to research conducted by Johns Hopkins University.
You may not consider it hypocrisy, but there is certainly an inconsistency in the age limits we prescribe. Of course it’s not the worst thing that can happen to a kid. Unless your the 18 year old kid called up to go to war.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/17/2010 @ 2:49 pmAre you suggesting we shouldn’t let anyone under 21 drive?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/17/2010 @ 2:52 pmAlso, Dana, I’m sorry that my earlier comment wasn’t clear. I didn’t say kids are as competent as adults when they drive, drink, buy guns and cigarettes, and vote. I said they can “comprehend or deal with the rules” regarding when they do those things. In other words, my point is that society should not be overly concerned that there are different rules for how we treat 18-year-olds vs 21-year-olds. And I think kids can cope with that fact.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/17/2010 @ 2:55 pmThe problem seems to arise when we find that modern medical technology sort of backs-up the old ways of restricting choices and activities to around the age of 21;
AD-RtR/OS! (7bc302) — 10/17/2010 @ 2:58 pmin that, I have read reports (as I’m sure you have) that point out that there are indications that areas of the brain dealing with reason, and rational decision making,
seem to mature at a slower rate than other areas, and that what our fore-fathers knew just from observation and experience, is now buttressed by medical science,
for the most part.
It is why ATBE that teen-age drivers make rash decisions as to what they do with a car, even when well trained.
It is also why militaries love teen-aged soldiers: They are easier to point at a hill and say, take it!
But, in our “Progressive” rush to attain Liberté, égalité, fraternité we have discarded so many “old-fashioned” truths, we now reap a stunted crop.
We are too quick to extend Rights, but way too slow to demand responsibilities.
The above can be corralled under the heading of:
AD-RtR/OS! (7bc302) — 10/17/2010 @ 3:01 pmMusings of a tired, old man!
Also, AD, I would add that the younger one is, the more willing to take risks, and he more inclined to see themselves as immortal or indestructible. And while we know that because most of us were also that inclined when young, there are certainly questionable decisions regarding age in the given privileges these days.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/17/2010 @ 3:03 pmAs far as the argument that Joe Snuffy would wig out if he were armed… in the whole Centcom theater, and in other OEF areas, he’s armed and ammo’d up round-the-clock. The only mass murders there that I’m aware of was Sergeant Akbar, a Mohammedan fifth columnist doing the Sixth Pillar of Islam (and violating the Sixth Commandment of the civilized religions).
How many of those Joes got a Dear John? Tens of thousands. In some units they post them to the bulletin board and the guys score them. But, no wig-outs. (Now, there may have been some Dear-John-motivated suicides, and of course alcohol is more difficult to come by in the Centcom AO, especially on the big bases where underemployed support troops get up to mischief).
Meanwhile, in the USA, there’s been several instances of mass shootings on military bases. Thing is, there’s no real way of stopping someone with criminal (or terroristic, like Hasan) intent from arming himself and making trouble. The impulse not to trust people is natural but it is fundamentally anti-american. Most people, left to their own devices, do good and positive things, far outweighing the trouble made by those who need a firm hand to behave.
One good line of defence against the next Hasan is simply to relax prohibitions on state-licensed concealed carry on base. Concealed-carry licensees have a rate of violent crime that’s infinitesimal — lower than such famously peaceful and law-abiding groups as Jews and lawyers.
I say this based on my military experience and public-policy reading; I don’t really have a dog in this fight as I very seldom go on a military base any more and don’t presently have a concealed-carry license. I just think the Army’s way of handling it is criminally negligent, uninformed by current research, and essentially stuck in the 1960s.
General Casey’s comments after the attack were a PR disaster and a nuclear leadership failure in the megaton range. He appears more interested in protecting the criminal than the force.
Finally, whoever commented on the deletion of the video, and attributed it to an NCO trying to prevent gory death and suffering hitting the TV News (or YouTube), was probably right on. Had that stuff been transmitted to any TV station, they’d have led with it, and it would be for sale on DVD in every bazaar in the Mideast. The military (especially combat-experienced NCOs and junior officers) are keenly aware of the prurient interest our enemies foreign and domestic take in snuff videos. There’s no difference between as-Sabah and CBS in that.
Kevin R.C. O'Brien (326fa9) — 10/17/2010 @ 3:05 pmI guess that makes me a tired old woman, AD, because I agree with you.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/17/2010 @ 3:05 pmMusings of a tired, old man!
Hear, hear for wisdom that comes with age!
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/17/2010 @ 3:16 pm“…lower than such famously peaceful and law-abiding groups as Jews and lawyers…”
Sarc Alert….
Wasn’t the Stern Gang composed of lawyers?
AD-RtR/OS! (7bc302) — 10/17/2010 @ 4:15 pmThe much prettier Dana wrote:
True enough, but at least there we can hope they take it out on the enemy!
No system is perfect.
The practical Dana (bd7e62) — 10/17/2010 @ 5:02 pmI was in Jimmy Carter’s army- gun free and ammo free from what I could tell. We were an air defense artillery unit, an hour’s ride from The Warsaw Pact, with no Chaparral missiles or 20mm rounds for the Vulcans. We walked guard duty with an axe handle instead of a loaded M16- and this in (west) Germany when Baader-Meinhof and Red Army Faction were active.
It was disheartening.
Jones (72b0ed) — 10/17/2010 @ 6:45 pmAnd yet, I work on a military base every day. I have a state-issued CCW, and am a retired 24-year veteran of the Army, qualified with just about everything that goes “bang” at one time or another.
And I’m not allowed to carry, per regulations, on post.
This is stupid, and a violation of the Second Amendment, IMHO. I’m trying to change it here.
Virtual Insanity (d93c26) — 10/17/2010 @ 11:25 pmIt’s a slow process, but progress is being made;
AD-RtR/OS! (7bc302) — 10/17/2010 @ 11:54 pmjust remember, 15-20 years ago, hardly anyone, anywhere, could get a CCW, because we only needed guns to support the militia if it got called up.
Virtual Insanity wrote:
No, it isn’t. You have the choice of not carrying your weapon when you go on base, or of carrying your weapon and not going on base. It seems, from your comment, that you have chosen the former.
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 10/18/2010 @ 5:53 amDana @55
Unfortunately, Dana, I am one of those horrible government employees, overpaid and fat from the milk of the taxpayers. The job I have and do daily takes me onto federal land.
I suppose I could refuse to work on the installation, but I don’t think that bodes well for my fiscal future based on my particular skillset.
I think it would be better if the federal government decided I should be allowed to exercise the rights enumerated in the Constitution I swore (several times, in several capacities) to support and defend.
The 2nd Amendment, in particular, is one that could be exercised without causing the type of problems, say, the Hatch Act deals with.
Virtual Insanity (1d2640) — 10/18/2010 @ 8:54 amif you are in an apartment that is confined, then folding tables would be very well suited for you *,-
Complete Kitchen · (60abd2) — 11/14/2010 @ 7:31 am