The Case Against Arming All Troops

U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Michael R. Zuk

On July 16, Marines Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Sullivan, Lance Cpl. Skip Wells, Staff Sgt. David Wyatt, and Sgt. Carson Holmquist and a Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Randall Smith were shot and killed by an apparent Muslim extremist, Mohammad Abdulazeez. In the wake of that shooting, many have called for the repeal of the 1992 regulation (issued again in 2011) that prohibits the general arming of military personnel on bases and military installations not in a combat zone. Earlier this week, Chad Russell, a fellow Marine Corps veteran, made a case for this on this website.

The murder of five military servicemen in a cowardly attack has set off the emotions of many Americans. I, myself, am angered and saddened by the loss of my fellow service members. There is also a concern, even a fear, that further attacks on military members who work daily at recruiting and reserve centers could follow. Anger, sadness, and fear are natural reactions to this heinous action. They are not, however, sound foundations for policy.

Emotional arguments and over-generalizations in a rush to arm military members suddenly perceived to be in harm’s way are neither prudent, nor advisable. Russell makes the point that our military is one of the best trained in the world, equipped with a variety of high tech weapon systems. Denying access to an M9 or M4 seems silly in that context. It’s a simple, compelling argument. It’s also incorrect. It conflates “military” with “infantry” or even “combat arms.” It’s an easy mistake to make. As an infantryman, when someone says “Marine Corps,” my thoughts immediately go to my own occupational specialty and experiences. In reality, the infantry makes up a small portion of the armed forces. Mechanics, administrative clerks, food service specialists, intelligence analysts, and others make up the vast bulk of the military. That means they also provide a large portion of recruiters and reserve center staff. Even in the Marine Corps, where “every Marine is a rifleman,” this does not always translate to high proficiency with a rifle, much less a pistol. Running a range, I’ve seen a perfectly skilled admin chief “go unq,” meaning fail to qualify, twice before managing to qualify with the M16. The services have no annual requirement for pistol qualification outside of certain occupational specialties. And annual qualifications alone do not a proficient shooter make.

In his confirmation hearing before the Senate days after the attack, Gen. Mark Milley, the incoming Army Chief of Staff, responded to questions regarding it. He told the committee that the military should look at “hardening” its facilities with passive measures. These would include barriers, bullet-proof glass, etc. He was less enthusiastic about arming military members across the board, saying that it should be looked at and supported where “deemed appropriate”.

Arming military members at recruiting and reserve centers makes sense if they are properly trained and equipped. Military members who are from combat arms, military police, or similar specialties who maintain their weapons qualifications and engage in sustainment of shooting skills should be permitted to provide security at these sites. And the 1992 Pentagon directive would not have to be repealed to allow this to happen. The directive specifically “authorizes DoD personnel to carry firearms while engaged in law enforcement or security duties, protecting personnel, vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners.” The determination that security is needed at these sites by the military service chiefs and the DoD would permit those members with proper training to serve as a security force. This means not only being trained in the use of the weapon, but also in the continuum of force and rules that govern military security forces.

The notion that Marines (and the military) should “be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet,” said by Marine Gen. James F. Mattis and cited by Russell in his piece was doled out in a specific context, an active combat theater where the threat of insurgency and attack wasn’t just high; it was imminent. It should not be the basis for military posture at home. Recruiters should not “have a plan” to kill everyone they meet the moment they walk in the door. Complacency kills, but the opposite of complacency is not reactionary paranoia. Where appropriate, military members should be properly equipped and trained to provide basic security for themselves and the civilians around them. This doesn’t mean being afraid, or wary, or rushing headlong into arming someone just because they wear a uniform. The consequences of following that route could be just as unfulfilling and potentially damaging.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs paid $13,000 over a three-month period for a senior official's biweekly commute to Washington from his home in California, according to expense reports obtained by ProPublica.

Read More Show Less
Saturday Night Live/screenshot

President Donald Trump said that "retribution" should be "looked into" after this week's opening skit of Saturday Night Live featured Alec Baldwin being mean to him again.

Read More Show Less
Staff Sgt. John Eller conducts pre-flights check on his C-17 Globemaster III Jan. 3 prior to taking off from Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii for a local area training mission. Sgt. Eller is a loadmaster from the 535th Airlift Squadron. (U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. Shane A. Cuomo)

CUCUTA, Colombia — The Trump administration ratcheted up pressure Saturday on beleaguered Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, dispatching U.S. military planes filled with humanitarian aid to this city on the Venezuelan border.

Read More Show Less
U.S. Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan speaks at the annual Munich Security Conference in Munich, Germany February 15, 2019. REUTERS/Andreas Gebert

ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT (Reuters) - Acting U.S. Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said on Saturday he had not yet determined whether a border wall with Mexico was a military necessity or how much Pentagon money would be used.

President Donald Trump on Friday declared a national emergency in a bid to fund his promised wall at the U.S.-Mexico border without congressional approval.

Read More Show Less
A pair of U.S. Navy Grumman F-14A Tomcat aircraft from Fighter Squadron VF-211 Fighting Checkmates in flight over Iraq in 2003/Department of Defense

Since the sequel to the 1986 action flick (and wildly successful Navy recruitment tool) Top Gun, was announced, there's been a lot of speculation on what Top Gun: Maverick will be about when it premieres in June 2020. While the plot is still relatively unclear, we know Tom Cruise will reprise his role as Naval aviator Pete "Maverick" Mitchell, and he'll be joined by a recognizable costar: The iconic F-14 Tomcat.

It looks like the old war plane will be coming out of retirement for more than just a cameo. A number of recently surfaced photos show an F-14 Tomcat aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, alongside Cruise and members of the film's production crew, the Drive's Tyler Rogoway first reported earlier this week.

Read More Show Less