Soldiers speaking out in favor of carry guns on US military bases

Soldiers who survived the 2009 attack at Fort Hood, Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning, Sgt. Howard Ray and retired Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, warn it is time the 1993 rule be revised.  Now even more are speaking out.  From the Army Times:

In the wake of last week’s shooting on Fort Hood many soldiers and some lawmakers are calling on the military to reconsider allowing troops to carry concealed weapons on post.

On social media and elsewhere, soldiers have been speaking out about their inability to defend themselves at work.   

“It’s the only place that a licensed soldier can’t carry,” said Staff Sgt. Jacob Wiley, who’s assigned to the 708th Contingency Contracting Team at Fort Campbell, Ky. “When you’re deployed,you have your weapon issued to you, and it’s mandatory that you carry it. Then you come back home and you come onto post, and ... the only people who are going to have weapons are military police ... and those who don’t care about the law.” . . . 

A warrant officer, who asked to remain anonymous so he could speak freely, said he believes select soldiers should be allowed to carry weapons on post.   

“If somebody is in a trusted position, someone with a security clearance, somebody who’s in charge of making sure a soldier’s welfare is taken care of, they should be carrying some sort of protection so we don’t have to wait 10 to 15 minutes for the police to show up,” said the warrant officer, who’s been in the Army since 2008 and is training to become a helicopter pilot. . . . .

Gun-free zone debate getting serious discussion in the media, the debate is changing some

Something after the Fort Hood shooting is different.  The problem of gun-free zones is getting a serious discussion.  Previously many in the media had even denied that there were even gun-free zones on military bases.  I can't recall news stories so openly discussing problems with gun-free zones.  From Fox News:

MARTHA MACCALLUM, GUEST HOST: One of the first questions to come up after this shooting is why were none of these victims armed? John Lott is a FoxNews.com columnist. His son was at Fort Hood yesterday. Lott asks why his son can carry a concealed handgun whenever he is off the base from Fort Hood and can protect himself and others. But on the base he and his fellow soldiers he says are defenseless. Why would that be?
Texas Republican Congressman Steve Stockman is behind a bill that he hopes will change that. Congressman, good evening. Good to have you here.
REP. STEVE STOCKMAN, R-TEXAS: Good evening.
MACCALLUM: You go so far as to say you believe that the extent of these shootings happens because these soldiers on this base are not allowed to be armed.
STOCKMAN: That's absolutely right. In fact, this is a 20-year experiment that's failed. This has only been in place 20 years. We're not talking 50 or 100 years. This has only been 20 years. And since it's been in place you see a rapid increase in this kind of violence on bases. And John Lott's absolutely right. As he walks off the base, he can carry a gun.
MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, it is extraordinary in many ways when you think about it. And in fact, after the original Fort Hood massacre the restrictions were tightened on this base, correct?
STOCKMAN: Yes, this is a bizarre response. I know there are some generals that are saying hey, we shouldn't still allow them to protect themselves, but these are young men and women we say we want them to protect us. And it only makes sense if we're trusting them to protect us -- we should trust them to protect themselves. And this is a notion that we need to give them the right to protect themselves. It's a crazy notion that we train them and then we don't allow them to -- to say you can't have a gun. It doesn't make sense.
MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, the fact of the matter is, when you look at all of these mass shootings there's one thing that ultimately ends the violence, and it is when that person generally is confronted with a gun. And that's what happened here. A brave military police officer on that base, a woman, stepped in and stopped it, right? . . .

From National Public Radio has this from Alan Greenblatt:

For John Lott, Wednesday's mass shooting at Fort Hood was a test of personal beliefs that struck uncomfortably close to home.
His son is serving at Fort Hood and was close enough to the activity hear shots and screaming.
But he wasn't in a position to respond. Department of Defense policy forbids soldiers and sailors, in most circumstances, from carrying weapons at installations.
That frustrates Lott. For years, he has been promoting the idea — including in his book "More Guns, Less Crime" — that relaxing gun restrictions would make for a safer society.
"Even though my son just got back from a tour of duty in Afghanistan, where he had his gun with him all the time, he isn't able to have his gun with him on the base," Lott says. "We somehow don't trust people to carry a gun on base here."
Lott is not alone in this debate. With the third mass shooting at a military facility in five years, some members of Congress want to reexamine the policies that leave soldiers unarmed on base. . . . .

From USA Today:

At a hearing Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked about revisiting policy about prohibiting soldiers from carrying personal arms on U.S. bases, suggesting it might be helpful for self defense.
Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army chief of staff, disagreed, saying military police carry weapons for law enforcement purposes and that was "appropriate." . . . 

Strength standards for male Marines lowered dramatically so that women can perform tasks, but half of female recruits still fail pull-up test

So what is the danger of lower male strength tests so that only 3 pull-ups need to be done.  3 pull-ups?  Someone with that little upper body strength is going to be able to scale a wall?  This is someone that you want to depend on in combat?  From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) - More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do three pullups, the minimum standard that was supposed to take effect with the new year, prompting the Marine Corps to delay the requirement, part of the process of equalizing physical standards to integrate women into combat jobs. 

The delay rekindled sharp debate in the military on the question of whether women have the physical strength for some military jobs, as service branches move toward opening thousands of combat roles to them in 2016. 

Although no new timetable has been set on the delayed physical requirement, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos wants training officials to "continue to gather data and ensure that female Marines are provided with the best opportunity to succeed," Capt. Maureen Krebs, a Marine spokeswoman, said Thursday. 

Starting with the new year, all female Marines were supposed to be able to do at least three pullups on their annual physical fitness test and eight for a perfect score. The requirement was tested in 2013 on female recruits at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C., but only 45 percent of women met the minimum, Krebs said. 

The Marines had hoped to institute the pullups on the belief that pullups require the muscular strength necessary to perform common military tasks such as scaling a wall, climbing up a rope or lifting and carrying heavy munitions. . . .

Navy Seals ordered to remove "Don't Tread on Me" flag from uniforms because it "is too closely associated with radical (tea party) groups"

This is too much.  A symbol of American military resolve from the beginning of the Republic is being ordered off of military uniforms because of its association with the tea party?  From the Daily Caller:

The Navy Jack is the ‘don’t tread on me’ flag, one that has earned a revered place in America’s naval history and a beloved place in sailor’s hearts, through its use for over two centuries. This symbol of America’s naval ferocity has spanned our country’s entire existence, flying from the masts of the Continental Navy during the war of independence, to today’s War on Terror. In fact, an amendment to the Navy code called SECNAV Instruction 10520.6 clearly states that as of 31 May 2002 all ships are to fly the flag throughout the duration of the War on Terror. . . . 

When a friend of mine asked his leadership the same question, he was told, “The Jack is too closely associated with radical groups.” We must assume that this thought policeman embedded in the SEAL community is speaking of the Tea Party . . . .

Pressure on Marines to change standards so that women can qualify for infantry?

The same thing happened with police.  First women were allowed to be patrol officers, but because so few made it through the training, the training standards for women were set differently than those for men.  The results were fairly troubling.  From the New York Times:

. . . Last fall, the first two female volunteers failed to complete the course. One, a distance runner, was dropped on the first day, known as the Combat Endurance Test. The second, a soccer player, endured for over a week before instructors pulled her out because of a stress fracture in her foot. Both are now training for non-infantry jobs. 

In Quantico, concerns run deep among some staff members that pressure to accommodate women will lead to a softening of the Marine Corps’ tough standards. Col. Todd S. Desgrosseilliers, commander of the Basic School, which includes the Infantry Officer School and the Basic Officer Course, said that would not happen. 

“They are gender-neutral now,” he said of the standards. “They aren’t hard to be hard. These are the things they need to be able to do to be infantry officers.” 

The 86-day Infantry Officer Course, which was started in 1977 by Vietnam combat veterans, is viewed with special reverence within the corps, the most infantry-centric of the armed services. Though its students tend to be top performers in basic officer training, more than one in five are dropped during the infantry course. Some are allowed to try again, but most find other jobs in the corps. . . .

UPDATE: A reader points out to me that the strength requirements for men and women in the Marines are already quite different.  The information for men is available here and for women here.
On the flexed-arm hang for women, the criteria is met as long as there is some bend in their elbows.  "Marines are authorized to drop down below the bar, however, some degree of elbow flexion must be maintained with both arms. Once a Marine's arms are fully extended or the Marine drops off the bar, the clock will stop."
Compare the requirement for men: "The intent is to execute a vertical 'dead hang' pull-up. A certain amount of inherent body movement will occur as the pull-up is executed. However, the intent is to avoid a pendulum-like motion that enhances the ability to execute the pull-up. Whipping, kicking, kipping of the body or legs, or any leg movement used to assist in the vertical progression of the pull-up is not authorized. If observed, the repetition will not count for score."
There was a time when I was in my teens and twenties that I was able to do 20 pull-ups.  Now I can do five (I suppose that I could do more if I actually worked at it regularly).  So right now at age 54, I can score a 25 for men, but I just tried it and I was able to hang for 90 seconds with bent elbows so I had no trouble scoring a 100 on the test for women.
Women can also take about 17 percent longer to run 3 miles.  Only sit ups have the same requirements for both men and women.

With the budget deficit, the government continues to find things to waste lots of money on, military biofuels

Besides the exorbitant costs, sing less efficient fuel means shorter distances that our military can travel without requiring refueling.

A House-Senate deal on defense legislation omits a GOP-backed plan to thwart military purchases of biofuels.The Senate already had stripped restrictive language from its version of the defense authorization bill last month, making it differ from the House. House and Senate negotiators took cues from the Senate's version.
“There is no limiting language in there. It looks favorable at this point and I commend the administration for the hard line it took,” Michael McAdams, president of the Advanced Biofuels Association, told The Hill on Tuesday.
A House-Senate negotiating group unveiled the compromise bill Tuesday afternoon. House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said the bill is scheduled for a Thursday House vote, is expected to pass the Senate and will hit President Obama's desk Friday. . . .

Obama administration pushes for limits on private access to guns as a way to prevent military suicides

The Obama administration position has been watered down some by Congress, but it still leaves that notion that if you can only get rid of privately owned guns by those who are at risk of suicide, you can prevent them from occurring.  The problem is that there are so many ways to commit suicide and that people will merely do it some other way.  I have a discussion on suicides in chapter 10 in More Guns, Less Crime (for a much earlier discussion on this point see here).  See this article from the New York Times:

But with suicides continuing to rise this year, senior Defense Department officials are developing a suicide prevention campaign that will encourage friends and families of potentially suicidal service members to safely store or voluntarily remove personal firearms from their homes. . . . 

The new amendment, part of the defense authorization bill for 2013 that has passed in the House of Representatives but not in the Senate, would allow mental health professionals and commanders to ask service members about their personal firearms if they have “reasonable grounds” to believe the person is at “high risk” of committing suicide or harming others. . . . 

When active duty troops who live on bases or are deployed are identified as potentially suicidal, commanders typically take away their military firearms. But commanders do not have that authority with private firearms kept off base. Instead, they would often urge potentially suicidal troops to give their guns to friends or relatives, or have them stored on base. . . .

Ending gun-free zones in Afghanistan

My only question is why it has taken so long for this change to be made.  It has never been obvious to me why US troops would have ever been disarmed within their own installations.  From The Hill Newspaper:

Gen. John Allen, commander of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan, has taken the drastic step of ordering all American troops to be armed at all times -- even when within U.S. or coalition bases -- as a way to protect against increasing insider attacks.
The order, according to reports by CNN, states that all U.S. personnel will carry a weapon plus a magazine of ammunition around the clock.
The weapons will be carried in formerly secured areas, CNN reports, such as U.S. headquarters in Kabul and other coalition and Afghan government installations around the country.
Allen issued the order on Saturday, a day after two members of a U.S. special operations group were killed by a local recruit to the Afghan police force in Western Afghanistan.
The two soldiers assigned to a U.S. special forces team assigned to train and equip local police forces in Farah province, were unarmed when they were shot and killed by Mohammad Ismail on Friday.
Their deaths bring the toll of American soldiers killed by their local counterparts to 11 in the past two weeks. . . . .

Obama administration doesn't think that it is appropriate to have a parade in NYC to honor the troops that served in Iraq

From the AP:

Bloomberg says Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin Dempsey and other Army officials "made it clear" to the city "they do not think a parade is appropriate now." . . .

Any guesses where the Afghanistan Taliban will be hiding?

So guess where the Taliban will be having their "business" meetings? In office buildings or homes?

Afghan President Hamid Karzai says he will no longer allow NATO airstrikes on houses because they have caused too many civilian casualties. He says a recent strike that mistakenly killed a group of children and women will be the last.

Mr. Karzai told reporters in Kabul on Tuesday that "from this moment, airstrikes on the houses of people are not allowed." It was the president's strongest statement against the strikes, which NATO says are a necessary weapon in the war against the Taliban insurgency. . . .

One cost of killing Osama

This isn't saying that it was wrong to go after Osama or to go after him in the way that he was gone after with a strike team. Apparently, the helicopter that was abandoned was a U.S.'s top secret stealth-modified helicopter. There hadn't even been public pictures of this helicopter in the past.

U.S. officials have not officially disclosed any details on the helicopter, but President Obama said it was a "$60 million helicopter," according to a report by The Washington Post. While the price tag on normal Blackhawks varies depending the type, none cost more than $20 million according to the latest Department of Defense procurement report. . . .

Libyan War cost at least $600 million in First Week

Obama has been avoiding discussing the exact cost of the war. He mentioned the word "cost" multiple times in his speech on Monday, but there were no specifics. Here is an estimate of the costs from ABC News.

One week after an international military coalition intervened in Libya, the cost to U.S. taxpayers has reached at least $600 million, according figures provided by the Pentagon.
U.S. ships and submarines in the Mediterranean have launched at least 191 Tomahawk cruise missiles from their arsenals, costing $268.8 million, the Pentagon said.
U.S. warplanes have dropped 455 precision guided bombs, costing tens of thousands of dollars each.
A downed Air Force F-15E fighter jet will cost more than $60 million to replace.
And operation of ships and aircraft, guzzling ever-more-expensive fuel to maintain their positions off the Libyan coast and in the skies above, could reach millions of dollars a week, experts say.
"Each sortie, even if it drops no munitions, is very pricey," said Winslow Wheeler of the Center for Defense Information. "These airplanes cost us tens of thousands of dollars to operate per hour, and the fancier you get in terms of planes, the costs get truly astounding."
The three B-2 stealth bombers that flew from Missouri to Libya and back on an early bombing mission each cost an estimated $10,000 per hour to fly, a defense official said. . . .

Too many men top officers in the military?: The Obama administration independent panel seems to think so

I am sure that this will shock most people about the concern over too many males. Do women enjoy being in the military as much as men? Are they willing to make it their career as much as men?

The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.

Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.

One barrier that keeps women from the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat units. Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.

The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military’s leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.

Efforts over the years to develop a more equal opportunity military have increased the number of women and racial and ethnic minorities in the ranks of leadership. But, the report said, “despite undeniable successes ... the armed forces have not yet succeeded in developing a continuing stream of leaders who are as diverse as the nation they serve.” . . .

"Pentagon’s Gay Poll Was A Sham"

Ann Coulter has these points:

The Pentagon's poll on "don't ask, don't tell" is beyond idiotic. Instead of asking whether the troops support repeal of DADT, the Pentagon asked only if they can learn to play nice with the gays.

Even more absurdly, the Pentagon polled all military "personnel" -- and their spouses! Only a small portion of what is known as "the military" actually does the fighting. The rest is a vast bureaucracy along the lines of the DMV. . . .

Obama and Democrats pushing too much in Lame Duck

On the one hand, Obama promised the Russians that the Start treaty would be his priority.

President Obama said on Sunday that he has told Congress that passing the new START treaty during the lame duck session is a “top priority.”

“I reiterated my commitment to get the start treaty done during the lame duck session,” the president said after a meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. “And I’ve communicated to Congress it is a top priority.” . . . .

Here he is again.

President Obama made another plea for the ratification of the arms deal with Russia on Friday, arguing that a failure to approve START “would put at risk the substantial progress that has been made” on national security.

“Nobody is more aware of a need for a strong, secure and democratic Europe than our eastern and central European allies,” Obama told reporters in Lisbon.

He added, "Just as this is a national security priority for the United States, the message that I’ve received since I’ve arrived from my fellow leaders here at NATO could not be clearer: New START will strengthen our alliance, and it will strengthen European security." . . .

He also is promising to push amnesty for illegal aliens. Pelosi and Reid have also made promises on amnesty also.

President Obama met privately in the Oval Office Tuesday with leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to discuss immigration reform, and aides say his hope that Congress will approve the DREAM Act during the lame duck session. . . .

Pelosi has also made other promises:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reassured representatives of several LGBT organizations this week that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and a measure to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) will get votes this year.

Pelosi made her comments in an hour-long telephone conference call with representatives of six LGBT groups on Monday. . . .

She renewed her promise to homosexual groups on passing Enda (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) here.

Senator Harry Reid will also be pushing for a vote on DADT.

Passing extensions to unemployment benefits is moving forward and it is quite controversial in that Republicans will support it only if the spending is paid for. Keeping middle class taxes from going up is also a big priority. And of course, congress hasn't passed any of the spending bills for the budget this year. The lame duck session only lasts for a month. I think that this session could be a real mess for the Democrats.

Openly homosexual troops in the military?: About 95 percent of Marines say "no"

The problem of having homosexuals in a fighting force is that it creates the potential of romantic relationships and jealousy -- this could lead to problems in soldiers trusting the actions of others. Would a soldier follow orders and abandon someone they are romantically involved with if they were ordered to do so? Just the possibility of doubt can raise problems when lives are on the line. The head of the Marine Corps has his concerns. The current rules don't stop homosexuals from serving in the military, the rules just stop them from serving openly.

As many as 95 percent of Marines would be uncomfortable serving alongside openly gay troops, the retiring commandant of the Marine Corps told Fox News in an exclusive interview.

Gen. James Conway told Fox News' Jennifer Griffin that a majority of his men and women think a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy barring gays from serving openly will be problematic, so he has to believe that, too.

"When we take a survey of our Marines, by and large, they say that they are concerned that it will cause potential problems with regard to their order and discipline -- that it will impact their sense of unit cohesion," Conway said.

Gen. Conway was the first member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to speak out against a repeal earlier this year after Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen publicly endorsed President Obama's desire to change the law.

Conway plans to retire Oct. 22 after 40 years of service with the Marines. . . . . And wartime, he said, is "probably not the time" to change the military's policy on gays. . . . .

A military plan in Afghanistan that avoids trying to produce victory, what is the point?

Fighting a war where soldiers are just biding time?

President Obama urgently looked for a way out of the war in Afghanistan last year, repeatedly pressing his top military advisers for an exit plan that they never gave him, according to secret meeting notes and documents cited in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward.

Frustrated with his military commanders for consistently offering only options that required significantly more troops, Obama finally crafted his own strategy, dictating a classified six-page "terms sheet" that sought to limit U.S. involvement, Woodward reports in "Obama's Wars," to be released on Monday.

According to Woodward's meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives.

"This needs to be a plan about how we're going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan," Obama is quoted as telling White House aides as he laid out his reasons for adding 30,000 troops in a short-term escalation. "Everything we're doing has to be focused on how we're going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It's in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room." . . .

This is nuts. Stronger after the terrorist attack?

Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."

Marine Commandant General James Conway speaks out about homosexuals in the military

He doesn't explicitly raise the issue of unit cohesion and how relationships between marines could impact that. An article on this is here:

Marine Commandant General James Conway told reporters, "We have some people that are -- that are very religious, and I think in some instances -- I couldn't begin to give you a percentage -- but I think in some instances we will have people that say that homosexuality is wrong and they simply do not want to room with a person of that persuasion because it would go against their religious beliefs."

In response to why Marines appeared to have more of an issue with changing the policy than perhaps other branches of the military, he offered, "That's a tough question to answer because I'm not as familiar with the other services as I am my own Corps...we recruit a certain type of young American, a pretty macho guy or gal, that is willing to go fight and perhaps die for their country."

He added, "We are forced to live in close proximity aboard ship, in the field for long periods of time and that type of thing...and we'd just as soon not see it change."

General Conway's comments come one day after Pentagon officials mailed out 150,000 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" surveys to military spouses, seeking input about the potential dismantling of the federal law that bans openly gay, lesbian or bisexual applicants from serving.

"We're anxious to see what the survey indicates when it's made public toward the end of the year...but if the law changes, we pride our Corps in leading the services in many, many things, and we're going to have to lead in this too. We've got a war to fight, and we need to, if the law changes, implement and get on with it." . . .

Military uses laser to shoot down drone

A discussion on the story is here.

Most service members oppose letting openly homosexual people serve in the military

I thought that congressmen wanted the military let their feelings known on this issue. From Fox News:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Pentagon reporters Thursday it's "inappropriate" for active duty officers to comment on potential changes to the law that bans gays from openly serving in the military. Those comments were a direct response to a March 8th letter written to the "Stars and Stripes " by Lieutenant General Benjamin Mixon, commanding general of the US Army Pacific, which clearly stated his opinion that most servicemembers are opposed to repealing the policy.

In the letter Mixon wrote: "It is often stated that most servicemembers are in favor of repealing the policy. I do not believe that is accurate." He went on to say, "Now is the time to write your elected officials and chain of command and express your views. If those of us who are in favor of retaining the current policy do not speak up, there is no chance to retain the current policy." . . .

UPDATE: The Marine Corps' commandant is pretty strong on this. Coming out on this must risk political retaliation from Obama.

The Marine Corps' commandant said he won't force his troops to bunk with gays on base and would give them separate rooms if Congress votes to allow openly gay service.

The comment, by Gen. James Conway, is the latest pushback by a small but vocal faction of senior military leaders opposed to a repeal of the 1993 law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

President Obama says the ban is unfair, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates has launched a lengthy study to determine how to allow gays to serve openly without hurting military effectiveness.

Among the questions to be answered is whether changes to housing policies would even be necessary.

Conway, a known opponent of repealing the law, suggested in an interview published Friday by Military.com that he already knows it would be a logistical hurdle. On base, Marines typically bunk two-to-a-room. . . .