Shots fired at you? That’s why it’s called “the military” and not “a quilting circle”
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com…
The more I think about it, the more pissed off I get at the “this is our home” comment from the completely unsat and hopefully about-to-fall-on-his-sword General Cone.
Sure, General, your troops were “safe at home”… in a war with no fronts.
They were every bit as safe at home as the crews of the USS Cole or the battleship Arizona. Safe at home like the Marines in their barracks in Beirut.
An army at war does not have the luxury of “safe at home”. Do you think the bomber crews of the Mighty Eighth landed in southern England after pasting the hell out of the Nazis and called out “Olly olly oxen free! We’re safe at home now; we’ll be putting on our slippers and lighting a pipe. No fair bombing us ’til tomorrow, Adolf!” or do you think they made sure that there were plenty of slit trenches, anti-aircraft guns, and armed guards on the base?
Do our people need to wear full battle rattle to go to the infirmary? No, but the idea that our highly trained all-volunteer army should walk around in condition white with empty holsters and bull’s-eyes taped to their backs during a war and right in the middle of what is, to be honest, quite a tempting target is delusional at best and a grave insult to our troops at worst.
What she said.
We should be angry about an attack. We should respond to an attack. We should point out that an attack on our forces while wearing our own uniform is a bit dastardly and typical of dishonorable Muslim tactics. We should give Hasan a fair trial and then push him up against a brick wall and kill him.
…but bitching and moaning about an attack? Or feeling self pity? Or claiming that the Muslims aren’t following universally agreed-to rules?
Come on!
We know that they fight out of uniform. We know that there are no front lines in this war (or, really, any war). Heck, Hasan picked – even according to our own standards entirely legitimate and moral targets – it’s not like he went and shot up a day care somewhere.
What is this “safe at home” Oprahfication?
From a general ?
Pretty pathetic, that’s what.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I wonder if the military is going to rethink their on base gun control policy. A single guy, probably not heavily trained in firearms, taking out 43 troops before facing return fire shows a flaw in the system.
What seems odd is that this guy was going to be deployed. I wouldn’t think someone under FBI observation would be fit for deployment.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I wonder if the military is going to rethink their on base gun control policy.
Doubtful. Neither will they issue arms to every solider on base: you’d spend most of your duty day checking out, checking in and rifle and ammo checks. Forget about actually getting any work done.
The solution – or a solution – to this kind of attack is to issue sidearms to officers and NCOs.
There are fewer of them, but enough running around to provide cover. And we’re supposed to be able to trust these guys with a lot of responsibility like this.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
I would guess that the military and FBI aren’t on speaking terms.
I’d like know where he got the gun and multiple magazines. I don’t think he was in the one shot one kill class.
I heard a colonel talk about gun and ammo controls on bases. It sounds like the whereabouts of every gun and cartridge is known at all times.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:55 am
I’d like know where he got the gun and multiple magazines.
You’re kidding? An FN Five-seven and a 357 S&W: he bought them out on town and brought them onto base.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
[quote comment="227106"]I heard a colonel talk about gun and ammo controls on bases. It sounds like the whereabouts of every gun and cartridge is known at all times.[/quote]
I think that only applies to military issue. Because they operate on the assumption that if you’re going to steal a gun or do something bad with it, you’re going to sign a paper first.