Quote:
Originally Posted by cmbdiesel
So, in essence, what you suggest is upping the amount of armed people on the base...?
Is that not currently an available option, if the post/base commander sees fit?
There are already armed MP's and civilian guards on every installation, is the number of them somehow regulated?
I am not disagreeing with your suggestion, merely offering the view that it is not the fault of CINC.
|
GOOD GRIEF! That's what I've been saying. All the old man has to do is issue a duty roster that authorizes key individuals to draw and carry side arms when they come on post for work.
We're talking about an Army post for gosh sakes! There are people trained and qualified to carry and use weopons. The MP's and other post security can't be everywhere. Having some higher level, responsibile personnel armed, puts people around everywhere who have a chance of defending in such a situation with something more than their pocket knife in their hand.
Given the fact that most Generals today are politicians that are working toward another star, most of them don't want to do anything politically incorrect and initiate such a simple step on their own. If the POTUS OTOH told them to do something about it, they have everything in place to simply tell their Exec to get someone to put together such a duty roster.
WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND?
And yes, from where I sit it IS the fault of the CIC. If he were a competent leader, after the first massacre at Fort Hood, he would have told one of his underlings to talk to the Post Commander and do something to increase security. 30 seconds of his time would do it, and a REAL leader would have instinctively done that out of the natural concern for his people that a REAL leader naturally possesses.
For those of you unaware, leadership is supposed to come from the TOP DOWN, not the BOTTOM UP.