The Down Range Forum

Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: twyacht on March 14, 2012, 05:14:07 PM

Title: NY Times Buries Fact That Admin. Doesn't Trust Military During SecDef Visit.
Post by: twyacht on March 14, 2012, 05:14:07 PM
SecDef Panetta made a visit to Afghanistan. During his landing, a crazy Afghan drove a truck into a ditch along an adjoining runway and the truck burst into flames.

A long article that rehashes the soldier that killed Afghan civilians, the politics, the tense nature of relationships, etc,.....BUT toward the bottom of the article....

snip

In a sign of the nervousness surrounding the trip, a sergeant major abruptly told the Marines gathered to hear Mr. Panetta in a tent at Camp Leatherneck to get up, place their weapons — M-16 and M-4 automatic rifles and 9-mm pistols — outside and return unarmed. The sergeant major, Brandon Hall, told reporters he was acting on orders.


“All I know is, I was told to get the weapons out,” he said. Asked why, he replied: “Somebody got itchy, that’s all I’ve got to say. Somebody got itchy; we just adjust.”


Normally, American forces in Afghanistan keep their weapons when the defense secretary visits and speaks to them. The Afghans in the tent were not armed to begin with, as is typical.


Later, American officials said that the top military official in Helmand, Maj. Gen. Mark Gurganus, had decided on Tuesday that no one would be armed while Mr. Panetta spoke, but word did not reach those in charge in the tent until shortly before Mr. Panetta was due to arrive.


General Gurganus told reporters later that he wanted a consistent policy for everyone in the tent, and that “I wanted to have the Marines look just like their Afghan partners,” noting, “you’ve got one of the most important people in the world in the room.” He insisted that his decision had nothing to do with the massacre; later, defense officials said the decision had nothing to do with the truck at the airfield.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/world/asia/panetta-visits-afghanistan-following-massacre.html?_r=1&hp

 My shocked face is getting a real workout this year.



Title: Re: NY Times Buries Fact That Admin. Doesn't Trust Military During SecDef Visit.
Post by: Pathfinder on March 14, 2012, 05:41:14 PM
This SOB General disarmed Marines - Marines!!! - so a bunch of 3rd world soldiers don't feel bad? ? ? ? ? ?

The General need to be retired immediately. And I mean before dinner tonight!!   >:(
Title: Re: NY Times Buries Fact That Admin. Doesn't Trust Military During SecDef Visit.
Post by: robheath on March 14, 2012, 06:17:48 PM
PANETTA... That must be some forign word for pussy.
Title: Re: NY Times Buries Fact That Admin. Doesn't Trust Military During SecDef Visit.
Post by: jnevis on March 14, 2012, 06:46:07 PM
Look at  it another way...
I highly doubt Panetta ordered the troops unarmed, it probably came from the State Dept.  The Gen is trying to save face with the Afghans.  We all know we don't trust THEM with weapons.  If he allows the Afghans to be armed it is a greater security risk then having our guys leave the toys outside and gives the impression to teh Afghans that they are on relatively equal footing for show.

A single unarmed Marine is still more dangerous than an Afghan regiment.
Title: Re: NY Times Buries Fact That Admin. Doesn't Trust Military During SecDef Visit.
Post by: tombogan03884 on March 14, 2012, 06:55:28 PM
Look at  it another way...
I highly doubt Panetta ordered the troops unarmed, it probably came from the State Dept.  The Gen is trying to save face with the Afghans.  We all know we don't trust THEM with weapons.  If he allows the Afghans to be armed it is a greater security risk then having our guys leave the toys outside and gives the impression to teh Afghans that they are on relatively equal footing for show.

A single unarmed Marine is still more dangerous than an Afghan regiment.

That's a mistake , and an injustice, right there.
Giving those poor Afghans the mis impression that they will ever be any where near equal a US Marine.
Title: Re: NY Times Buries Fact That Admin. Doesn't Trust Military During SecDef Visit.
Post by: Solus on March 14, 2012, 07:59:27 PM
Makes me remember to other opinions about Marines. 

One I posted here taken from a column in a gun magazine telling the story of how a British woman who was traveling with Marines recently and was protected by them to the point that they covered her with their bodies from incoming.  She was awed by their "rude" language, not to her, but Marine Talk, and how they eagerly looked forward to confronting the enemy.  She said to one Marine "What would your mother say to you if she knew you risked your life to save mine?"  The Marine answer "What would she think of me if I didn't."

The other woman was Eleanor Roosevelt who's quote was:

“The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!”


Title: Re: NY Times Buries Fact That Admin. Doesn't Trust Military During SecDef Visit.
Post by: twyacht on March 14, 2012, 08:37:28 PM
It's another capitulation, apology, and weakening of our posture. Right up there with it's for the "children".....Disarming combat troops, in a combat theater of operations, is an insult.... Not to the Afghan's but US!!! This order came from some desk jockey in D.C. not the Commanders on the ground.

"I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within."
General MacArthur

It is much easier for warriors to fare well under conditions of maximum stress than to be impeccable under normal circumstances.

Rat Bast**ds...

Title: Re: NY Times Buries Fact That Admin. Doesn't Trust Military During SecDef Visit.
Post by: billt on March 19, 2012, 05:01:53 AM
If moral, along with the entire situation over there has deteriorated to the point they're worried about one of our guys popping the Secretary Of Defense, perhaps it's time to get out of that stink hole? This war makes Vietnam look successful, and Saigon fell what, 3 hours after we left? About the only thing left to add to the total stupidity of being over there, would be to start airlifting fertilizer to improve their Poppy fields. What a convoluted clusterf*#k.
Title: Re: NY Times Buries Fact That Admin. Doesn't Trust Military During SecDef Visit.
Post by: jnevis on March 19, 2012, 08:21:19 AM
If moral, along with the entire situation over there has deteriorated to the point they're worried about one of our guys popping the Secretary Of Defense, perhaps it's time to get out of that stink hole? This war makes Vietnam look successful, and Saigon fell what, 3 hours after we left? About the only thing left to add to the total stupidity of being over there, would be to start airlifting fertilizer to improve their Poppy fields. What a convoluted clusterf*#k.

Who says we aren't?  It may be headed there for them to use for actual FOOD production but divert it to the poppy fields by the local elders.
Title: Re: NY Times Buries Fact That Admin. Doesn't Trust Military During SecDef Visit.
Post by: billt on March 19, 2012, 09:58:07 AM
Who says we aren't?  It may be headed there for them to use for actual FOOD production but divert it to the poppy fields by the local elders.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Title: Re: NY Times Buries Fact That Admin. Doesn't Trust Military During SecDef Visit.
Post by: Solus on March 19, 2012, 10:30:20 AM
For years during the Cold War we were sending Russia enough food to prop up their economy until Pres. Reagan discontinued all financial aid to the 'Evil Empire', along with other measures, which lead to their economic downfall and collapse.

There is nothing the 'Enemy Within' can do that would surprise me.

 
Title: Re: NY Times Buries Fact That Admin. Doesn't Trust Military During SecDef Visit.
Post by: tombogan03884 on March 19, 2012, 01:10:46 PM
Norway did not fall to German Nazi's.
It was undermined by it's own "Quislings".
Look at Eastern Europe, yes, the Warsaw pact Govt's were set up by the Russians, but every damn one of them was built on a local communist party.