Why does the Pentagon hate the troops?

The Washington Post‘s editorial board unsurprisingly writes this morning that the troops don’t need to be armed on their bases, which are now gun free zones. The only people on military bases who are armed are the sparse law enforcement personnel and people who don’t bother to obey the law – people like Nidal Hasan and Ivan Lopez, the Fort Hood shooters. The Pentagon concurs with the Post’s opinion. You know the Pentagon, which is surrounded by well-armed guards.

The Defense Department has considered, twice, whether putting more guns in the hands of on-base personnel would make its facilities safer: after the 2009 Fort Hood shooting and after last year’s Washington Navy Yard massacre. Both times, Defense Department spokesman Damien Pickart said, the Pentagon declined to change policy, deciding that arming more people on base would pose safety problems and that the military would have to provide a lot of additional, costly weapons training.

One major concern is that disagreements inevitably arise among co-workers, whether soldier or civilian; base commanders should not want to make it easier for escalating fights to turn deadly. Another is that even well-meaning people can miss with a shot or accidentally discharge a weapon. “Even in the military, there’s varying levels of training and capability at using weapons,” Steve Bucci, a Heritage Foundation analyst and former Army commander, told the Christian Science Monitor. Both are reasons for a clear delegation of on-base safety to people who are on duty and trained to provide close-quarters security outside of a battlefield context.

Of course, we’re talking about the same Pentagon that was perfectly willing to sacrifice American lives for the sake of appearances in Afghanistan, when there was a spike in “green-on-blue” attacks there. It took about 60 deaths of US troops who were killed by our “allies” because the perfumed princes of Arlington thought that arming the troops in front of Afghans would insult them. So who is really surprised that the current crop of so-called leaders doesn’t want American troops to be able to protect themselves in their own country when they wouldn’t let them protect themselves in a combat zone for appearances sake?

That bullshit about escalating disagreements is a strawman. The troops disagree with each other in combat without shooting one another. However, I remember a few years back when armed contracted civilian gate guards at the old Walter Reed had a shootout over a disagreement about a woman.

If the military is promoting people to Sergeant rank who they don’t trust with firearms, maybe they need to take a look at their criteria for those promotions. In combat, those sergeants have the fire power equal to an entire World War II platoon, but the Pentagon won’t let those same sergeants have a handgun to protect the health and welfare of their troops in garrison?

Or maybe, they should stop promoting hand-wringing pussies to flag ranks, leaders who have faith in the lower ranks. But, like I said, they’re ensconced in layers of armed security at the Puzzle Palace and that’s all that counts.

I understand why the Post would be against more armed people on military bases, I know why they hate the troops, but why do the troops’ leaders in the Pentagon hate the troops and want more of them dead?

Category: Military issues