Arming military recruiters: Inside the Pentagon's agonizing policy review
Create Post
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Guest Free Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Providence County
    Posts
    99,583
    Credits
    98,278
    Savings
    0
    Images
    2

    Exclamation Arming military recruiters: Inside the Pentagon's agonizing policy review

    Nearly a year after the terror attack that left five service members dead in Chattanooga, Tennessee, the Pentagon remains unsure whether allowing recruiters and other vulnerable military personnel to carry guns is a viable and effective way to improve security at recruiting stations and other remote work sites.

    The military faces mounting pressure to arm more troops after the July 16 shootings by carried out by a Kuwaiti-born American whom investigators say was a “lone wolf” inspired by Islamic extremists’ propaganda. Mohammad Abdulazeez opened fire on a storefront recruiting center then drove to a nearby Navy reserve facility, where he killed four Marines and a sailor. The commanding officer of that facility fired his personal handgun at the assailant, which elicited praise from many troops, lawmakers and gun-rights advocates but briefly raised questions as to whether he'd face disciplinary action for violating regulations.


    In response to the Chattanooga shootings, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced last October his plan to arm “appropriately qualified individuals at select off-installation facilities” that require greater protection. Yet to date top military officials won’t say how many — if any — additional troops have been authorized to carry guns while on duty. And so far the Pentagon has offered no new policies clarifying how and when commanders can approve recruiters and other at-risk troops to do so. The issue takes on even greater complexity when discussion turns to concealed weapons.

    Military officials worry that more weapons or more armed guards could jeopardize their underlying goal of ensuring recruiting stations are approachable. “We have to create that balance,” Charles Kosak, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for defense continuity and mission assurance, told Military Times during an interview Friday. “The mission is really to be accessible. If you try to create a situation where you have armed guards standing all around a facility ... that kind of an approach would negate in many ways the very purpose for a recruiting center, which is to have an inviting environment in which a young person with his parents … can come in.

    “We are creating policy that creates clarity for commanders to make balanced decisions,” he said.

    Another complicating factor is the patchwork of state and local gun laws. Many recruiting stations are on leased property, giving the landlords some say over the question of guns on the premises.

    "There are so many variables," Kosak said. "... These facilities are physically different ... the staffing at those facilities is very different and potentially, for example, the remoteness of a facility as it pertains to first-responders’ capacity."


    Kosak cautioned that giving more guns to recruiters or others may not improve safety. “You could unleash unintended consequences. You could come into situations where you’re not adding value,” he said.

    Kosak said the Pentagon is in the final phase of “clarifying the policy.” He declined to say whether the end result will ultimately give commanders wider discretion to arm recruiters and other off-base personnel.

    “It probably sounds whishy-washy,” said one defense official familiar with the discussions. “But the thing that an outsider doesn’t understand is that there is so much confusion in the [current] policy about what is allowed and what is not allowed, because it wasn’t clarified. So by clarifying it, it really does clear up and explain what options commanders may already have but they just don’t understand.”

    The Pentagon’s indecision has frustrated Congress. On Wednesday, House lawmakers threatened to withhold funding if the Defense Department doesn't finalize its firearms policy by the end of this year. The threat was proposed by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who called it a matter of basic safety and fairness for troops looking to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

    Kosak said the new policy will probably be unveiled “within a few months.”

    While the issue of arming more personnel remains unresolved, the Pentagon is pushing ahead on several other safety measures for recruiters and others at off-base work sites. For example, the Defense Department has established force-wide standards for physical security enhancements at recruiting stations and set aside $80 million this year to begin installing those measures. They include:

    • New entry-control points, like swipe-card readers

    • Peep holes for back doors

    • Window blinds that obscure visibility for passersby

    • “Internal ballistic protection” that would give people something to hide behind in the event of an armed attack.

    Installing those enhancements is underway at some recruiting stations, Kosak said.

    Another measure that military officials have agreed to involves new mass-notification procedures. An agreement with state-level officials will require 911 emergency service operators to notify U.S. Northern Command about any major incidents reported at remote military work sites, Kosak said.

    In turn, NORTHCOM would notify nearby installations and work sites to ensure rapid responses to attacks like the one in Chattanooga.

    Similar Threads:

  2. #2
    Funny. The mission of our embassies abroad is to be accessible too. Yet, they are still protected outside by an armed guard, and inside by armed Marine Security Guards. You do what is necessary to keep your people safe. Everything after that is secondary. We should've learned that lesson back in 85 when our BLT barracks in Lebanon was blown up by a suicide truck bomber.

    I know it doesn't matter. But would be interesting to hear how current recruiters/I-I Staff feel about having access to weapons if they need them. Once again, the decisions are being made by policy makers sitting in their cubicles at HQMC. Those decisions they make will have zero impact on them.


  3. #3
    Regarding all these shootings, just how many have been permitted by Marines. As far as I know jet hasn't committed any crimes so far. Other than him I'm not aware of any. I would also think that ALL Marines would meet any weapon qualifications.


  4. #4
    DO TELL!!!!! so our POLITICIANS (now that word, in and of itself is truly an oxymoron) are STILL debating if our MILITARY RECRUITERS can be trusted with real firearms...... what drivel..... which proves once again that the average politician has the IQ of a "pet rock", but is capable of doing much more damage....


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not Create Posts
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts