uest-when-he-interrupts-him-
LOL! This was a fascinating and highly illustrative verbal exchange. With
all appropriate respect to the good Colonel Jacobs, MOH winner and all, this
is an excellent example of why senior military officers are not the best
judges regarding what rights ought to be extended to the American citizenry:
because they are largely a bunch of over-bearing control freaks who are
accustomed to bossing around soldiers who must, by law, obey them
implicitly. A habit Colonel Jacobs clearly finds hard to break. He clearly
bristles at having his point of view challenged, even by someone
mild-mannered and distinguished in his own field like Dr. John Lott.
Well one must consider that the MSNBC networks MO in the gun control debate
all along has been to invite a gun rights advocate, such as Dr. Lott, on to
one of their talk shows only to set them up to be rebuked, shouted down and
generally humiliated. This is far from the first time that Dr. Lott has been
shouted down on MSNBC, yet he keeps showing up. Either he is being paid
handsomely for his appearances or he is a glutton for punishment! Well,
regardless of his motivation, I commend Dr. Lott for being a stalwart
advocate for gun rights and being willing to speak truth to power!
So why does the Israeli Army require ITS soldiers to carry loaded firearms
on base and everywhere else they go, as a response to the ever present
terrorist threat in the country, but the U.S. Army generally prohibits ITS
soldiers from doing so? The answer is simply because the Israeli Army trusts
its soldiers to behave in a safe and responsible manner and the U.S. Army
does not. It has been that way for the cumulative 30 years I was a member of
the both the active and reserve components of the Army. The U.S. Army does
not even trust its commissioned and non-commissioned officers to handle
firearms safely and responsibly; the same rules that restrict the enlisted
soldiers are generally applied to the officers and nco's. I imagine that
makes things more "egalitarian", but it scarcely inspires confidence that
the chain of command is really all that concerned for serviceman's lives.
Colonel Jacobs said no "responsible" commander would ever approve of arming
"everybody on post." I would amend that to say that no commander "who wanted
to keep his job" would every approve arming "anybody on post", much less
"everybody". Because the first time that there was an accident or incident
in which someone was killed by a soldier's weapon, that commander's judgment
would be immediately called into question and he, or she, would be swiftly
relieved of his, or her, position. After which said commanders future
chances for promotion would be exactly nil. After all, the control that the
Army has over its personnel is tenuous at best and many of our soldiers come
from "troubled" backgrounds and thus are all too prone to misbehavior.
Furthermore, any such misbehavior by Army personnel reflects badly on the
Service as a whole (especially since the Leftist news media has consistently
gone out of its way to embarrass the military services ever since the
Vietnam War). Therefore, any incident or accident that would, in the chain
of command's estimation, reflect badly on the Service's ability to maintain
control of its soldiers, will simply not be allowed to happen. Even if such
risk adverse polices ultimately place soldiers at even greater risk because
terrorists and criminals have come to realize how absurdly vulnerable to
attack the personnel on Army bases really are.
"Lott argued no one is saying that "everybody" should be armed, as Jacobs
suggested."
"The current rules mean that the killer knows that he's not going to be
facing opposition there," he said. "That makes it - not only encourages him
to go and engage in that type of attack to begin with, but makes it much
more successful."
Dr. Lott is correct, of course, but Colonel Jacobs was completely dismissive
of the idea of allowing any soldier to be armed on base, save for Military
Police on duty. Of course, even if the chain of command were to see fit to
issue arms and ammunition to soldiers on post, they would probably insist
that the firearms be kept unloaded while on base as soldiers were required
to do in while on base in Iraq and Afghanistan. The loaded magazine for the
weapon was to be carried separately in a pouch or pocket until time of need
(called condition "green"). Naturally, this is why the Afghan "insider"
assassins were able to get the drop on American military personnel and
murder them so easily on base. It is hard enough to beat someone to the draw
when they already have their gun pointed at you; it's even harder when your
own gun is not loaded. It was only after about a dozen American troops were
murdered by these "insiders" that the chain of command saw fit to change the
rules so that soldiers could carry their weapons loaded and ready on base.
Colonel Jacobs discussed at length that risk is implicit in military
service. However, what he left unsaid was that in the estimation of all
"responsible commanders" there is far greater risk that a soldier will
mishandle a weapon or use it to commit a crime, thereby embarrassing the
Service chain of command, than there is that terrorists will launch a
"Mumbai" style attack on one of our military installations. Colonel Jacobs
is a brave man who was willing to risk his life in the service of his
country and he is perfectly willing to risk others' lives as well. Not the
"responsible commander's" career prospects, however. Mission first, people
always (Mission First!).
This is one of the times it would be useful for the military to be unionized
as the police generally are. Then the union would insist that serviceman be
armed at all times for their own safety just as police officers are. When
was the last time you heard of a police station being attacked? If the
soldiers' weapons training was insufficient to ensure safe , then it would
be up to the chain of command to remedy that through improved and increased
training. The chain of command sure doesn't shy away from increased training
to remedy any perceived deficiencies in soldiers' behavior regarding
"politically correct" values.
HOW ODD THAT MASSACRES MOSTLY HAPPEN IN "GUN-FREE ZONES"! When will the
brain-dead Left wake up and draw the obvious conclusion?
By John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) Brisbane, Australia, Dissecting Leftism
BlogSpot.
By Epictetus
No comments:
Post a Comment