| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Some US troops in Afghanistan ordered to patrol with no rounds chambered |
| 2010-05-20 |
| Is this another insane ROE item or what? Commanders have reportedly ordered a U.S. military unit in Afghanistan to patrol in a manner that could handicap them. Some soldiers are being ordered to conduct patrols without a round chambered in their weapons, The US Report has learned from an anonymous source at a forward operating base in Afghanistan. Our source was unsure if the order came from his unit or if it affected other units. On war correspondent Michael Yon's Facebook page, commenters stated that this is a common practice in Iraq, while others said that it is occurring in Afghanistan as well. According to military protocol, "Amber" status requires weapons to have a loaded magazine, but the safety on and no round chambered. "The idea that any combat unit would conduct any operation, including patrolling and even manning a security post -- in which direct action may-or-may not take place -- and not having weapons loaded, borders on being criminally negligent in my opinion," says Lt. Col. W. Thomas Smith Jr., a recognized expert on terrorism and military/national defense issues. "This is nothing more than infusing politically correct restrictions into already overly restrictive rules of engagement. And this PC nonsense is going to get people killed." According to Smith, "American soldiers are highly skilled in the use of 'loaded' weapons, and so should be trusted to operate with 'loaded' weapons. If someone overseeing decisions on ROE thinks not, then ratchet up training. But don't put a man on the street and force him to go through multiple prompts when a gunfight breaks out. Remember, the situation can go from quiet to kinetic in half the time it takes to breathe." In an ambush situation, just how long does it take to engage a target when your weapon isn't already loaded? "Too long," states Sandy Daniel, military veteran and Deputy Director of the Victory Institute. "The first couple of seconds in an ambush are critical, and when that block of time is used to load a weapon instead of firing, you are losing the time you need to stay alive. Patrolling without a chambered round is suicide." Smith adds, "Let's not forget the catastrophic result of not having weapons loaded on Oct. 23, 1983, when a U.S. Marine sentry barely managed to load his weapon and get off one or two hasty, ineffective shots at the speeding bomb-laden truck that crashed into the Battalion Landing Team headquarters in Beirut. The truck breached the building, the explosives were detonated, and 241 Americans perished in the largest--at that time--non-nuclear blast in history." The ROE for our forces in Afghanistan, commonly referred to in military circles as the "Karzai 12," appear similar to the rules for the Marine Corps "peacekeeping" force operating in Lebanon 1982-1984: 1. When on the post, mobile or foot patrol, keep loaded magazine in weapon, bolt closed, weapon on safe, no round in the chamber. 2. Do not chamber a round unless told to do so by a commissioned officer unless you must act in immediate self-defense where deadly force is authorized. Hopefully our military won't experience another preventable mass casualty incident like the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing. But with our leaders repeating the failures of the past by not permitting our troops to carry loaded weapons, it seems we have become our own worst enemy. Makes one wonder if we are playing to win or to show... |
| Posted by:CrazyFool |
| #26 Amen CF. When a kinder gentler handling of Afghanis means crueler than cruel for us, that is just shameful and wrong. Just because someone has rank or Commission does not mean they can't be relieved of these. To all you military out there that may be on the front lines, you are in my prayers and do whatever you can to keep yourself and your squad alive on patrols. Rank can be earned back, but if you lose your life because of some kiss up policy or some unlawful order, it is permanent. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2010-05-20 23:14 |
| #25 This has to be part of some plan - and not a good plan either. If you were in charge, and you wanted to completely destroy the U.S. Military - the people not just the equipment. To make it the most demoralized army on the planet. What would you do different - than something like this? Not much. I'm not military - but even I can see that this is outright stupid. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-05-20 22:55 |
| #24 What I hate is that this is going to get soldiers needlessly killed. If I was on patrol I would have rounds chambered and I would take the heat for disobeying an order. Laws, especially stupid ones, need to be broken or changed. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2010-05-20 22:38 |
| #23 You still obey the chain of command. Don;t get me wrong, the staff bastard that wrote the rule should be beaten senseless, as should the General that signed off on it. What I hate most about this is the outright f'ing STUPIDITY of the order. Some West Point ring knocking REMF blanket folder write this? It smacks of elitism. Only commissioned officers can change the status? Give me a damn break! So of some staff weenie in the rear with the gear can change it, but a combat experienced 1SG cannot? An experienced squad leader SGT on his 3rd combat tour cannot lead his squad and have them go red without a direct intervention of some butter bar ROTC grad whose only combat is on the XBox? The strength of the Army and USMC combat units is in its NCOs, and this rule is a HUGE disrespectful piss on the senior enlisted and their veteran combat squad leaders. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-05-20 22:31 |
| #22 My understanding and take on this is that soldiers are only obliged to follow lawful orders. That said, this obviously begs a question: is ordering a soldier to conduct patrols in a war zone without rounds chambered lawful or unlawful. And if it is lawful, should it remain as such. I am not a UCMJ expert by any means, but isn't that the essential question: is this lawful, and if it is, should it remain lawful or be dissolved. Jurisprudence seems in my book, to imply some prudence to the Juris part. Any legal knowledge is probably buried deep in a Reg somewhere, which if this crap keeps up, I may start poking around in. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2010-05-20 14:35 |
| #21 I may take some heat for this but here goes anyway. Please don't get too mad at me because I'm trying to phrase it as a question instead of recommending a course of action for anybody. At some point, if people lose confidence in their government, don't you begin to have problems recruiting and retaining people to serve in the military? Seems to me if that happens the next step is the draft, right? And then massive protests? I mean, I understand that if you love your country you want to defend it no matter who the POTUS is. But if the POTUS is making horrendous mistakes, if his political goals are suspect, if he is abusing his power and needlessly exposing the people who serve to danger we have a problem, don't we? |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2010-05-20 14:18 |
| #20 It's lambs to the slaughter. Why even have genuine weapons, just hand out dummy toy ones. This is a troubling situation. And though Clauswitz had a point, but then he probably could never have predicted that political corectness would baloney would ever become this mainstream. I doubt Clauswitz would applaud this ROE. |
| Posted by: Richelieu 2010-05-20 13:38 |
| #19 cops can patrol our streets with weapons at the ready but soldiers in a war zone can't? Well that's ass backwards |
| Posted by: chris 2010-05-20 13:24 |
| #18 Suppose they're trying to make it a fair fight now. If this doesn't work, I expect blindfolds for our troops out on patrol. |
| Posted by: DK70 the Scantily Clad7177 2010-05-20 13:02 |
| #17 11hr50 in D.C. at the moment and yes, while I wish it were Nov 2012, it is still only May of 2010. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-05-20 11:53 |
| #16 B-Ker, quite correct sir. L = Local. Our time over here is 8 hours & 30 minutes ahead of you folks, at least on the East Coast. However comma space, I was in error regarding the year, which as far as I know is still 2010. Ever since early 2002, the years have kind of ran togather for me. |
| Posted by: Bodyguard 2010-05-20 11:49 |
| #15 That's murder of these soldiers. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2010-05-20 11:37 |
| #14 17:45L Lima = local time (or it used to anyway) |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-05-20 11:26 |
| #13 Srsly- what's the 'L' for? Local |
| Posted by: ed 2010-05-20 11:25 |
| #12 #5 For the first time in my adult life, I truly fear for my country. Posted by Glomock Tojo6610 I had a similar feeling in November of 2008 Tojo and it has NOT subsided. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-05-20 11:24 |
| #11 Mustang Ramp, Afghanistan 5/20/2011 17:45L Mom!! Bodyguard is posting from the future again! Make him stop! (Srsly- what's the 'L' for? Lima timezone must be out towards Micronesia, no?) |
| Posted by: Free Radical 2010-05-20 11:17 |
| #10 Yes, we understand Clausewitz' dictum that 'war is an extension of politics'. However, politics are not just on the field of battle in the theater of operation, but also at the homefront [which way too many professional generals choose to ignore]. The American heartland [not to be confused with coasties, academics, or Hollyweird] values its sons and daughters who choose to serve, but under the expectation that their lives won't be forfeited in a stupid manner, as they were in Beirut. Screw up playing stupid games and even the heartland will quickly turn on you and your efforts, making all the strategy and nuance for naught. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-05-20 11:16 |
| #9 While I think it is crazy I remind the readers of this blog that a military exists only for reaching political goals. That military operations are only the tool to reach those goals. Yes I think that the commander in chief has every right to tie the hands of the military behind. That does not mean I approve or even trust this POTUS. |
| Posted by: JFM 2010-05-20 11:00 |
| #8 Don't worry too much about us over here, we won't set the stage for mission failure on our or our buddies' behalf. Us Yanks learned a lot from the Brit's back in OIF about dealing with a fence sitting population, and they had learned it in Ireland. Sometimes it's best to take a knee, sometimes it's best to grab up the little shit and swat him on the ass right in front of his village. There are times to take off your helmet and apply a band-aid from your cargo pocket, and there are also times to destroy. Our guys out pounding sand have pretty much got this war gig figured out. It all stems on the whole "Golden Rule" thought process. Best, Bodyguard Mustang Ramp, Afghanistan 5/20/2011 17:45L |
| Posted by: Bodyguard 2010-05-20 09:17 |
| #7 This isn't the first time this has happened in our recent history either. The Marines in Beirut in 1983 had empty magazines. This bullshit has been happening for decades when some pencil dicked feel good asstwat decides that it would be "stressful" for the people we are protecting to have loaded weapons. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2010-05-20 08:22 |
| #6 He has not obtained the respect, confidence, willing obedience and loyal cooperation of the military. A leader who has to depend upon the authority vested in the position he holds is a loser and unfit to hold the position he occupies. |
| Posted by: Grunt_0369 2010-05-20 08:20 |
| #5 For the first time in my adult life, I truly fear for my country. |
| Posted by: Glomock Tojo6610 2010-05-20 07:55 |
| #4 If you don't trust your in your troops, why should they trust you? And why should we trust you with the lives of our sons and daughters? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-05-20 07:38 |
| #3 The elected civilians in USA, whether the president or any other stupid must never have the authority to send our brave young to fight in a foreign war with their hands tied behind, period. We must amend our constitution to make sure that our elected politicians, including the president have no legal right to dictate our armed forces once they are send to fight in a foreign war and in this situation only our armed forces can decide without the interference from our stupid politicians if they need to annihilate the enemy with a massive attack with nuclear warheads. To kiss the ass of our enemies is the job of politicians. The job of our armed forces is to win the war/conflict with any the means our nation can provide. Now think this way, your army is called in action because the politicians failed to negotiate a mutually satisfactory agreement without serious violations. Will it make any sense to let the same damned failed politicians to order your kids to die in a foreign war with their hand tied behind. Folks those kids dyeing there for our nation are yours as well as mine, the way I feel about it. They do not need to die there when they can vaporize the whole populations of enemy in a matter of seconds. |
| Posted by: Annon 2010-05-20 07:13 |
| #2 They need to find out who's bright idea this was and get rid of him/her. |
| Posted by: Xenophon 2010-05-20 00:24 |
| #1 Glad, no, overjoyed I got out of the service before Bumbleberry came on board. Just seeing his portrait picture posted to the far right on the chain of command board at the VA makes me doubt my ability that I could have loyally contined serving with that ineffectual Titular Head at the helm. Our real President is.....who the phuck knows. Because Obama has neither guts or grit enough to stomach real war and provide actual leadership to the military, FWIW. This whole SNAFU is just ridiculous. Either lets kill more terrorists, or throw in the fucking towel already. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2010-05-20 00:12 |