Marines forced to disarm before meeting secdef panetta

[MarineTpartier]

I know that some may not see this as a big deal. For someone in the military, it is huge. Carrying your personal weapon (whether a 9mm pistol, M-4, or M-16A4) while "in country" is standard. As a matter of fact, you cannot enter any messhall without a weapon. The level of distrust shown to the Marines that wanted to meet SECDEF Panetta is just another in a long line of disrespectful moves towards our military by the current administration. I understand if we are meeting the POTUS, we lay down weapons. His office is a political one and can sew discourse in troops that don't approve of his policies. However, the SECDEF is not a political office. In fact, he is overall responsible for voicing the opinions and needs of the very people that were required to disarm to meet him!
In addition, the General that gave the order to disarm is a pinhead. Many of our General's now-a-days are out of touch, snotty, 10 pound brain types who know nothing of the dirt we chew on the ground. Many of these men have not actually fought in combat. The most combat action they have seen is of the incidental type that happens to occur on their tours of the Area of Operations (AO). These men have read a few books, been to a school or two, and declare themselves "masters of the COIN environment". Sadly, history is repeating itelf in Afghanistan. Vietnam was THE demonstration of what happens when senior officers become involved in lower level decisions. Apparently none of our General's read that in any book.
So, what say you. Is it disrespectful for the SECDEF and Major General Gurganus to require the Marines to lay down their arms?
Marines told to disarm before Panetta speech – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

 

[EagleAye]

Completely disrespectful. That's total bull****. The REMF who made the men disarm needs to be reassigned to Adak (or west Texas).

 

[Manc Skipper]

It's not like there haven't been troops running amok lately, and somebody welcomed him in country by driving a blazing car onto the runway when he landed. You can see why the possibility of a firefight in the hall didn't appeal.

 

[theangryamerican]

I think it's pretty telling when a government doesn't trust not only their citizens, but even their own soldiers to be armed in their presence.

 

[MarineTpartier]

It's not like there haven't been troops running amok lately, and somebody welcomed him in country by driving a blazing car onto the runway when he landed. You can see why the possibility of a firefight in the hall didn't appeal.

The blazing car was driven by an Afghan interpreter. If it had been a Marine, I could see the logic. Troops have not been "running amock". We have had 2 negligent incidents. The Quran burning wasn't a deliberate act. Dead guys getting peed on? Whatever. The rampage the Army guy just went on? Yes, that is an incident to make a big deal out of. But the actions taken by the SECDEF and d-bag General were over the top knee jerk reactions that have become typical of the military hiearchy as of late. I see your point. However, when you have Generals walking the streets of Afghanistan with no body armor on and no weapon to show the population they trust them, can't the SECDEF walk into a tent with some Marines while they hold their unloaded weapons?

 

[MarineTpartier]

I think it's pretty telling when a government doesn't trust not only their citizens, but even their own soldiers to be armed in their presence.

Agreed. We're just circling the bowl.

 

[beerftw]

dont see where marines need to be disarmed,senators have visited various posts in afghanistan,general petraeus visits all the posts and eats with all the soldiers,but maybe all of them trusted the soldiers more than they did the local population.

but then again obama during his speach after the fort hood shooting had secret service search all soldiers who came to view his speech,so if obama is deadly afraid of unarmed soldiers its no surprise someone would be scared of them when they were armed.


btw obama for his fort hood shooting speack had a wall built around the field made of steel connexes stacked on eachother,if requiring a steel barricade to talk to his own people doesnt say scared nothing does.

 

[American]

It's not like there haven't been troops running amok lately, and somebody welcomed him in country by driving a blazing car onto the runway when he landed. You can see why the possibility of a firefight in the hall didn't appeal.

Are you really going to stand by something this clueless? Troops? One troop, wasn't it, hyperbole much? The blazing vehicle had what to do with firearms? Duh....

 

[Wiseone]

I know that some may not see this as a big deal. For someone in the military, it is huge. Carrying your personal weapon (whether a 9mm pistol, M-4, or M-16A4) while "in country" is standard. As a matter of fact, you cannot enter any messhall without a weapon. The level of distrust shown to the Marines that wanted to meet SECDEF Panetta is just another in a long line of disrespectful moves towards our military by the current administration. I understand if we are meeting the POTUS, we lay down weapons. His office is a political one and can sew discourse in troops that don't approve of his policies. However, the SECDEF is not a political office. In fact, he is overall responsible for voicing the opinions and needs of the very people that were required to disarm to meet him!
In addition, the General that gave the order to disarm is a pinhead. Many of our General's now-a-days are out of touch, snotty, 10 pound brain types who know nothing of the dirt we chew on the ground. Many of these men have not actually fought in combat. The most combat action they have seen is of the incidental type that happens to occur on their tours of the Area of Operations (AO). These men have read a few books, been to a school or two, and declare themselves "masters of the COIN environment". Sadly, history is repeating itelf in Afghanistan. Vietnam was THE demonstration of what happens when senior officers become involved in lower level decisions. Apparently none of our General's read that in any book.
So, what say you. Is it disrespectful for the SECDEF and Major General Gurganus to require the Marines to lay down their arms?
Marines told to disarm before Panetta speech – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

This was done just not to offend the Afghan Soldiers there who weren't allowed to carry weapons, basically it was just a political decision to not make the Afghans feel they were different from American even though of course they are. It has NOTHING to do with trust.

Clearly you didn't actually read your own source which states

Gurganus later told reporters the decision had nothing to do with the weekend shooting, and said it was because the Afghan soldiers in attendance were unarmed and he did not want them treated differently than the Marines.

A senior defense official told CNN that Gurganus made the decision to have all coalition troops disarm on Tuesday, but "the order never got passed down the line to the individual units. So, unfortunately, it wasn't until all the Marines were sitting down Wednesday that anyone realized what the general really wanted. It looked bad. But at that point they needed to comply with the order."

Several Marines said they had never seen a situation like this, although they do not believe the decision resulted from any security concerns. The senior defense official said Gurganus was under orders to make partnership a priority, and he felt that "it wouldn't be right to have armed Marines sitting next to unarmed Afghan soldiers. He wants to promote the mission of partnership."

I certainly hope no one else invents meaning or reasons behind this which have no basis in any sources, purely for partisanship.

 

[MarineTpartier]

This was done just not to offend the Afghan Soldiers there who weren't allowed to carry weapons, basically it was just a political decision to not make the Afghans feel they were different from American even though of course they are. It has NOTHING to do with trust.

Clearly you didn't actually read your own source which states



I certainly hope no one else invents meaning or reasons behind this which have no basis in any sources, purely for partisanship.

As it was said above, and as I have experienced personally, many high ranking officials have been to Iraq and Afghanistan and not done this. I met General Patreus in a sheik's house in Sadr City Baghdad with a condition 1 weapon (round in the chamber) surrounded by 5 Iraqi Scouts in Condition 1 and he didn't even blink. In addition, screw what the Afghani's think. Let me ask you this, what do you think left more of an impression? The impression on those handful of Afghan soldiers that we view them as equal and so we'll lay down our arms too or the impression the young Marines took, with all that is going on right now around them and all the controversy surrounding the military, that their SECDEF required them to disarm. I know Marines, I've been around them for 12 years. They don't care what the reason was. All they know is, in order to meet this guy who's supposed to look out for them they had to lay down the very weapons he requires they pick up. That leaves a wound that won't heal with me and I wasn't even there.

 

[MarineTpartier]

This was done just not to offend the Afghan Soldiers there who weren't allowed to carry weapons, basically it was just a political decision to not make the Afghans feel they were different from American even though of course they are. It has NOTHING to do with trust.

Clearly you didn't actually read your own source which states



I certainly hope no one else invents meaning or reasons behind this which have no basis in any sources, purely for partisanship.

In addition, you ignored the portion where Major General Gurganus stated, "There's a new sheriff in town." What an idiot.

 

[Wiseone]

As it was said above, and as I have experienced personally, many high ranking officials have been to Iraq and Afghanistan and not done this. I met General Patreus in a sheik's house in Sadr City Baghdad with a condition 1 weapon (round in the chamber) surrounded by 5 Iraqi Scouts in Condition 1 and he didn't even blink. In addition, screw what the Afghani's think. Let me ask you this, what do you think left more of an impression? The impression on those handful of Afghan soldiers that we view them as equal and so we'll lay down our arms too or the impression the young Marines took, with all that is going on right now around them and all the controversy surrounding the military, that their SECDEF required them to disarm. I know Marines, I've been around them for 12 years. They don't care what the reason was. All they know is, in order to meet this guy who's supposed to look out for them they had to lay down the very weapons he requires they pick up. That leaves a wound that won't heal with me and I wasn't even there.

You're being over dramatic, I mean ridiculously so. It's your choice to be so offended by this instead of seeing it for exactly what it is, just a minor thing the result of a concern for the PR aspects of the mission. And that's it, what the Afghans think is a constant concern and for better or worse, right or wrong, part of the mission. I can understand the frustration, but that's the mission.

 

[American]

This was done just not to offend the Afghan Soldiers there who weren't allowed to carry weapons, basically it was just a political decision to not make the Afghans feel they were different from American even though of course they are. It has NOTHING to do with trust.

Clearly you didn't actually read your own source which states



I certainly hope no one else invents meaning or reasons behind this which have no basis in any sources, purely for partisanship.

If you ever say something conservative, would you send me a PM, so I can come running to read it? I mean I want to believe you're independent, and I figured every independent has to say something conservative by accident some time.

 

[Wiseone]

In addition, you ignored the portion where Major General Gurganus stated, "There's a new sheriff in town." What an idiot.

So what, what are you saying it means? I see a new Commander exerting his authority, and you see what?

 

[Wiseone]

If you ever say something conservative, would you send me a PM, so I can come running to read it? I mean I want to believe you're independent, and I figured every independent has to say something conservative by accident some time.

What are you trying to say? I'm a secret liberal because I read the article and pulled my argument straight from the source?

 

[American]

So what, what are you saying it means? I see a new Commander exerting his authority, and you see what?

Laying down weapons is something that the UN would do. Last time that happen a bunch of Marines got killed in their barracks.

 

[American]

What are you trying to say? I'm a secret liberal because I read the article and pulled my argument straight from the source?

No, because no matter what you're hard headed. A man who was in the Army wants troops disarmed. You hit your head or something?

 

[Thrilla]

oh dear.. I knew this guy (the Gen who gave the order to disarm..Gurganis) back when he was a Dog Robber at Lejuene in the early 80's....decent guy, but had that "politician" quality about him even then (to be fair, most dog robbers do)

anyways, it was a bad order... he's playing the game.
the SgtMjr should have counseled him better.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I read the article - don't have an issue though I did at first.

 

[Thrilla]

I read the article - don't have an issue though I did at first.

most folks won't have an issue with it... but most Marines will.

 

[DiAnna]

Yeah, at first I was all WTF??? Then I realized that they are trying to pacify a very angry Afghan military a few days after a US soldier murdered 16 civilians. Allowing US Marines to be armed while insisting that Afghan military be unarmed sends a "we're better and more trustworthy than you" message, which at this moment is the worst possible message to send.

 

[Wiseone]

No, because no matter what you're hard headed. A man who was in the Army wants troops disarmed. You hit your head or something?

I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth. I said the OP's understanding of this situation is entirely wrong, because this decision was made with the mission in mind not with the goal to disrespect Marines like the OP thinks. And I don't have to agree with the mission, this facet or it as a whole, or the decision to say it was done for that reason.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

most folks won't have an issue with it... but most Marines will.

Do clips need to come with pacifiers now?

One doesn't have to like orders: one just has to follow them.

This entire situation wouldn't have been reported on if command line was in tact and thorough with this apparently given but not delivered order. . . so everyone really should be questioning why an order was given and not dissiminated rather than questioning the nature of the order itself.

 

[AdamT]

Sounds to me like MarineTP is freaking out over nothing. The article makes it sound like it was a decision made by a new general who probably wasn't familiar with protocol. :violin

 

[Thrilla]

Yeah, at first I was all WTF??? Then I realized that they are trying to pacify a very angry Afghan military a few days after a US soldier murdered 16 civilians. Allowing US Marines to be armed while insisting that Afghan military be unarmed sends a "we're better and more trustworthy than you" message, which at this moment is the worst possible message to send.

i'd rather send the afghan army the message that that aren't trustworthy than send that very message to our Marines.