Just caught this on the news.....I've never heard of this done in a combat zone before. Anyone else? Makes me wonder what our Marines here think?
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/14/10684063-marines-asked-to-disarm-before-panetta-speech (http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/14/10684063-marines-asked-to-disarm-before-panetta-speech)
From the article:
QuoteDisarming in this way was noteworthy, according to NBC News' chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski.
He told NBC's Chuck Todd that the move was "highly unusual" and that Marines in a combat zone are always supposed to have weapons within their reach.
That is weird.
Odd. Where they really afraid for Panetta's welfare with our own troops? Sounds like Panetta's people were expecting to find a scene from, In the Hearth of Darkness or Apocalypse Now when the arrived or something.
There's got to be another reason.
However you look at it, it is certainly an insult to the troops who were there. A stateside base is one thing, a combat zone is another.
Here is the excuse given in the article...
Quote"You've got one of the most important people in the world in the room," Major General Mark Gurganus told reporters at Camp Leatherneck, dismissing concerns related to the shooting. "This is not a big deal."
He said he had given the order because the two dozen Afghan soldiers also there were unarmed and he did not want to treat them differently.
I call bull on that one. Of course the Afghan soldiers should be treated differently, they aren't US Marines who have taken an oath to protect the US and its interests. IMHO it sends a sad message when they can't even trust the Marines with weapons in a combat zone. I'm just a civilian but I'm pretty sure if the Marines wanted to kill somebody they really don't need a weapon to do it with. Just sayin...
Anyone ever read Otto Carius' bio, Tigers in the Mud?
He relates how he spent an hour in the company of Himmler (IIRC) with his sidearm. Alone.
It is clear in retrospect he wished he'd capped him, but at the time it wasn't considered a big deal.
I agree that at its simplest its an insult to the Marines. Also agree that US Marines should expect to be treated differently than Afghan troops. If I were a Marine it would piss me off.
Quote from: Gusington on March 14, 2012, 10:48:17 AM
I agree that at its simplest its an insult to the Marines. Also agree that US Marines should expect to be treated differently than Afghan troops. If I were a Marine it would piss me off.
I suspect there's more to the story.
It is almost a certainty that Panetta's boss wanted to send a message. That the message was unnecessary, stupid, and insulting to our troops is par for the course.
I'm sure there is. But way to make the good guys look like animals.
Perhaps a bit of overreaction...
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1187.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz397%2FSoccerDJ04%2F360-overreaction-02.jpg&hash=1ea3a2ed2a5f500f8f5cc7b4395951d3e4b2eab8)
Or it really IS like Apocalypse Now over there and Big Brother doesn't want us to know. :o This is a weird story. If it is a message, it isn't a very good or clear one.
Quote from: Gusington on March 14, 2012, 10:48:17 AM
I agree that at its simplest its an insult to the Marines. Also agree that US Marines should expect to be treated differently than Afghan troops. If I were a Marine it would piss me off.
Word!
Just read on NYTimes that an Afghan national tried to blow up a car near Panetta as he was de-planing...
If Panetta is afraid of his own troops, he should resign or simply rule from his carpeted office. When Clinton was first elected (with his notorious "I hate the military" comment hanging in the air), an old friend of mine who never served due to medical issues asked me if I thought there would be a coup. I told him then (and believe it now) that "you don't know our troops or you would never ask that question". I guess you can never completely protect a public figure from one nut, but I have to believe that if a Marine decided to point a weapon at Panetta that it would have been other Marines who got to him first, well ahead of any security.
Quote from: Gusington on March 14, 2012, 01:19:36 PM
Just read on NYTimes that an Afghan national tried to blow up a car near Panetta as he was de-planing...
So he disarms the men most capable of protecting him? Makes me wonder what they were thinking. :o
Yeah, this was an insult to Marines everywhere. Screw the Afghans.
Quote from: Steelgrave on March 14, 2012, 01:21:35 PM
So he disarms the men most capable of protecting him?
I was wondering this as well. Surrounded by hundreds/thousands of Marines carrying weapons, it's hard to imagine how I might feel any safer than that!
There has to be a lot we don't know. Maybe there was a threat that involved someone disguised as a US Marine.
Quote from: Gusington on March 14, 2012, 01:41:46 PM
There has to be a lot we don't know. Maybe there was a threat that involved someone disguised as a US Marine.
Yup. It makes no sense on the surface.
I've got to give Panetta the benefit of the doubt.
Still, you'd think they'd just uninvite the platoon with the guy in question and find something else for them to do, wouldn't you?
Makes. No. Sense.
^Which would be more offensive, disarming or being uninvited?
And then could they specify the threat to one platoon or was it just a generic US Marine in general?
Everything is speculation at this point - except that disarming Marines in a warzone is generally a dumb idea.
I think Panetta probably realizes what a dick he is and was scared - the book on the killing of Bin Laden by Chuck Pfarrer certainly paints a very negative picture of Panetta....
Panetta has always been a pretty square guy without any real hidden agenda and a willingness to listen to a LOT of people before making decisions. He was my wife's congressman in California for a long time.
I will agree that it seems like a pretty dumb decision, but I doubt it was made with any malicious intent. I think it was probably more of an over-reaction without much consideration to the potential over-reaction on teh interwebz
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 15, 2012, 05:21:40 AM
I think Panetta probably realizes what a dick he is and was scared - the book on the killing of Bin Laden by Chuck Pfarrer certainly paints a very negative picture of Panetta....
Huh! I was under the impression that Panetta was one of the prime reasons the raid even happened, that he pushed hard
and even may have done an end run around the POTUS who then had to act like it was always official.
According to the book he was very much in support of the raid and even had an actor in mind to play him when they did a movie based on the mission !!!! The book also makes some points about Panetta wanting to publicize raid details in order to ensure he got recognition. Quite a damning little piece actually. Pfarrer indicates that the special forces community did not appreciate his efforts.
Quote from: Gusington on March 14, 2012, 01:41:46 PM
There has to be a lot we don't know. Maybe there was a threat that involved someone disguised as a US Marine.
This was very much like our ROE in 1983.....it sucked but at least we were able to carry our weapons...they just couldn't be loaded.
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 15, 2012, 06:31:25 AM
According to the book he was very much in support of the raid and even had an actor in mind to play him when they did a movie based on the mission !!!! The book also makes some points about Panetta wanting to publicize raid details in order to ensure he got recognition. Quite a damning little piece actually. Pfarrer indicates that the special forces community did not appreciate his efforts.
After a little googling, and with all due respect to Mr Pfarrer, I'm left with the impression that he seems to have his own agenda
which may or may not involve generating a bit of controversy in selling his screenplays as he is an author and screenplay writer
with an OBL movie project of his own to peddle. Several pentagon officials strongly contradict a number of his assertions
although the bit about the chopper crashing after the raid rather than before may have some traction based on a few local
witnesses. As far as Panetta wanting a bit of glory- that is hardly uncommon in cabinet officials in any administration going
back to the primordial gov't ooze the first bureaucrat slithered out of after discovering it had grown legs.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on March 15, 2012, 06:06:48 AM
Panetta has always been a pretty square guy without any real hidden agenda and a willingness to listen to a LOT of people before making decisions. He was my wife's congressman in California for a long time.
I will agree that it seems like a pretty dumb decision, but I doubt it was made with any malicious intent. I think it was probably more of an over-reaction without much consideration to the potential over-reaction on teh interwebz
If you want to try to put a positive spin on it, I could speculate that it was done to impress someone inside the Afghan govt. Perhaps to show how disciplined US troops are. Combined with the alleged attack on him at the airport I might speculate that he was set up, but in the end all's well that ends well. And perhaps he won't make that mistake again.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on March 15, 2012, 06:06:48 AM
Panetta has always been a pretty square guy without any real hidden agenda and a willingness to listen to a LOT of people before making decisions. He was my wife's congressman in California for a long time.
I will agree that it seems like a pretty dumb decision, but I doubt it was made with any malicious intent. I think it was probably more of an over-reaction without much consideration to the potential over-reaction on teh interwebz
Yeah. It will probably turn-out to be an over-reaction from a recommendation made by a civilian bureaucrat (or USAF General/politician) in DoD.
In the few interviews I've seen with Panetta (mostly 60 Minutes) he came across as a pretty decent feller.
QuoteAmerican troops should pull out of outposts in Afghan villages to their main bases, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday, Karzai's office said, days after an American soldier was accused of leaving his outpost and killing 16 Afghan men, women and children in their villages.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/15/world/asia/afghanistan-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
I wonder if Karzai appreciates how tenuous his situation is. If we leave, he's toast.
He's toast already - he just doesn't know it - or maybe he does .....
I have to agree with Cen and Gus, I doubt that Panetta personally ordered firearms removed from the Marines. I'm guessing it was an aide overstepping his authority or maybe a commander making a bad call. I've always felt that Panetta was one of the "good guys"....for a Dem, anyway. Almost a throwback to the Scoop Jacksons and Sam Nunns who used to be liberal on the social side and conservative on the military side of things. Either way, I'm having a hard time seeing how the 'Stan is not going to fall right back into the 18th century when we leave, and a harder time thinking we need to invest any more of our son's lives there.....
^18th century? You have an extra 1 in there.
<chuckle>
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 15, 2012, 10:43:41 AM
He's toast already - he just doesn't know it - or maybe he does .....
I truly believe that he's already made his deal with the Taliban and now he's just waiting for the day that NATO leave.
The only question is: will the Taliban uphold their end of the deal?
They've been such upstanding citizens for the last 15 years why would they stop now!
Quote from: Gusington on March 15, 2012, 12:30:09 PM
^18th century? You have an extra 1 in there.
More like 8th century... BC.
The only thing that's changed there is imported technology.
Where's Darius the Great when you need him???
Actually, Afghanistan was comparatively enlightened in the 8th century as well as the 16-17th century (the Mughal Empire came from there). I set the Taliban firmly in a 12th century mentality. The famous one-eyed leader of the Taliban (whose name escapes me ATM) had hardly even left his home village and had no clue as to what the rest of the world was like.
What about the 8th century BC?
Quote from: Centurion40 on March 15, 2012, 01:18:16 PM
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 15, 2012, 10:43:41 AM
He's toast already - he just doesn't know it - or maybe he does .....
I truly believe that he's already made his deal with the Taliban and now he's just waiting for the day that NATO leave.
The only question is: will the Taliban uphold their end of the deal?
When camel pr0n is the most popular form of internet entertainment I think we can safely predict what is to follow.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 15, 2012, 01:55:18 PM
Actually, Afghanistan was comparatively enlightened in the 8th century as well as the 16-17th century (the Mughal Empire came from there). I set the Taliban firmly in a 12th century mentality. The famous one-eyed leader of the Taliban (whose name escapes me ATM) had hardly even left his home village and had no clue as to what the rest of the world was like.
Mullah Omar:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesofummah.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F12%2FMullah-Omar.jpg&hash=a3c8692acc32fe641b89cb982ec28fdba2d2417a)
Quote from: LongBlade on March 15, 2012, 02:21:02 PM
Quote from: Centurion40 on March 15, 2012, 01:18:16 PM
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 15, 2012, 10:43:41 AM
He's toast already - he just doesn't know it - or maybe he does .....
I truly believe that he's already made his deal with the Taliban and now he's just waiting for the day that NATO leave.
The only question is: will the Taliban uphold their end of the deal?
When camel pr0n is the most popular form of internet entertainment I think we can safely predict what is to follow.
Can't be internet porn, 'cause first they'd need to have access to the internet!
Yeah, Mullah Omar! Can you imagine a head of state who literally doesn't know what the next state over IS?
I think all the "stan" areas were pretty civilized in the 8th century BC too. Wasn't it under Persia at the time?
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 15, 2012, 10:57:02 PM
I think all the "stan" areas were pretty civilized in the 8th century BC too. Wasn't it under Persia at the time?
Actually, I think that was a few centuries before the rise of Persian overlordship. IIRC, they were still very much independent at the time -- just tribes duking it out amongst themselves.
I'm not sure about that early. I've got a book on the history of Persia around here somewhere, but it has been a long time since I cracked it. Olmstead is the author. It's supposed to be good, but I think I wasn't properly motivated at the time and only got about 100 pages in before getting distracted and putting it aside.