Who pulls the Arms away from the Armed Forces???

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9144379/Soldi...

There's a word for people who dont feel safe surrounded by a battalion of armed marines. Enemy.

No votes yet

What was discussed this morning, by a few Marine Corps Officers'(ret.), was that this decision couldn't be made by a CO. It probably was handed down from the Office of the Commandant, USMC, in Washington.

The stated decision came from Gen. Gerganus, the NATO commander who's CP is located on that base ( I know because it was the bldg next to where I worked when I was there last year)

It was because there are several forces there from other countries, they would have been invited to attend but had to remain unarmed. Telling Marines to in turn remain unarmed is a show of solidarity between the forces. While it may have been brow raising when you look at it from one way the decision makes sense when you look at all the factors involved.

MikeyA

C'mon, Mikey, think! If you were King Shit or the next nearest thing would you want to walk into a room full of armed jarheads, many of whom hated what you and your administration and its policies stood for? This is not to mention the certifiable crazies who are running around over there with guns. I hope not.

Pete the unfortunate thing for you is I am familiar with the base, people on it, and the level of safety afforded.

First, the base. Much was made about the suicide bomber, yet they didn't attack Leatherneck but Camp Bastion. Leatherneck, Bastion and Shorabak are the three bases, all linked together and Leatherneck is the SW portion, the airfield that was attacked represents the far eastern side of base with Bastion as a buffer in between. They didn't attack Leatherneck because the areas not bordered by Bastion and Shorabak are ranges, and at least one of the ranges is always "hot". Plus it's so flat and dead in the area you can see someone coming literally from a 2 mile distance easy.

Now when I was there the security force was handled by the Bahraini's. Not military but the police force. These men where excellent at what they did. Also to help aid the security effort is the Tsongans. They arrived just on deck before I left so other than their cultural dance/bbq they offered I had little interaction with them. And finally on Shorabak is the Afghans. Now the gates between Shorabak and the other two are secure gates. They are manned by a mixed team of Marines and Bahraini's/Tsongans. All personnel to go between them are subject to search.

The base is very secure. Now personnel do walk with their weapons but they do it in Condition 4.

This means there is no rounds in the chamber and the magazine is removed and carried on your person. It's easy to spot a weapon with a magazine inserted.

So yes, this was a secure situation and the decision was based in logic from the facts as Gen. Gerganus proposed them it makes sense.

MikeyA

Nothing is secure, nothing is safe, nothing is as it seems to be. First lesson in war!

There's a reason that base had not been attacked in over 2 years and the last time an attack actually hit the base was 2004. But OK Pete. Give me a lesson in war. Please do.

In fact I'll give you a topic. What is the role of amphibious operations in future wars and what can the US do to plan for the prevalence or lack of prevalence in these conflicts.

MikeyA

In the world there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong nothing can surpass it. One can not reflect in streaming water. Only those who know internal peace can give it to others.
Lao Tzu
:-)

This is obviously an area of expertise for you. Your explanation helps me to understand the issues and the decision. Thank you!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.