1 dead 14 wounded US Army base shooting - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Air&Road · #1 04-08-2014, 11:17 AM

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.

cmbdiesel · #2 04-08-2014, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

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.

Let's be realistic. The CINC is not really a military man. He relies upon intel from the officer corp to make decisions, and those decisions are not typically in regards to day-to-day operations. Those kind of decisions are delegated in the military as they are in most large organizations.
If the ability to have more armed personnel resides with the base commander, then they are the ones immediately responsible to ensure that it happens.

I understand that responsibility flows upwards, so in essence, the CINC is ultimately responsible. But I think it is fair to say that unless the need was presented to him and/or the ability to rectify was denied to the commanders because of edicts from the CINC, then placing the blame on him is not entirely deserved. At least not until you wore out the backside of the post commander.

As I stated earlier, I'm sure that you and many other veterans (thanks for your service) would be profoundly upset if POTUS started nosing into day to day military affairs...

Air&Road · #3 04-08-2014, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Let's be realistic. The CINC is not really a military man. He relies upon intel from the officer corp to make decisions, and those decisions are not typically in regards to day-to-day operations. Those kind of decisions are delegated in the military as they are in most large organizations.
If the ability to have more armed personnel resides with the base commander, then they are the ones immediately responsible to ensure that it happens.

I understand that responsibility flows upwards, so in essence, the CINC is ultimately responsible. But I think it is fair to say that unless the need was presented to him and/or the ability to rectify was denied to the commanders because of edicts from the CINC, then placing the blame on him is not entirely deserved. At least not until you wore out the backside of the post commander.

As I stated earlier, I'm sure that you and many other veterans (thanks for your service) would be profoundly upset if POTUS started nosing into day to day military affairs...

I still contend, that after the major event of the nutzoid doctor, at least as it was portrayed in the press, a REAL leader would have taken the very few seconds it takes to say something to an underling like "check into, or see to, or ensure that, or report back to me on..... the security on that post. A REAL leader will do that sort of thing. Of course with the current POTUS resume, he had zero experience in this area before entering the whitehouse and from all indications the OJT hasn't produced anything yet. He had time to make sure it was labeled as workplace violence instead of the OBVIOUS terrorism that it actually was.

The generals are politicians, they know to follow whatever tone that is set by the administration. They know that the current administration has no regard for the second ammendment, so they don't want to get involved with the stigma that a few soldiers carrying on post might put forth in the press. They want another star and will do whatever for it, just like a congressman will do anything to get elected for another term.

BTW, soldiers don't question their chain of command. They might gripe about amongst themselves but they don't complain up the chain. They also respect a commander at any level when he is doing something to protect them.

t walgamuth · #4 04-08-2014, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

I still contend, that after the major event of the nutzoid doctor, at least as it was portrayed in the press, a REAL leader would have taken the very few seconds it takes to say something to an underling like "check into, or see to, or ensure that, or report back to me on..... the security on that post. A REAL leader will do that sort of thing. Of course with the current POTUS resume, he had zero experience in this area before entering the whitehouse and from all indications the OJT hasn't produced anything yet. He had time to make sure it was labeled as workplace violence instead of the OBVIOUS terrorism that it actually was.

The generals are politicians, they know to follow whatever tone that is set by the administration. They know that the current administration has no regard for the second ammendment, so they don't want to get involved with the stigma that a few soldiers carrying on post might put forth in the press. They want another star and will do whatever for it, just like a congressman will do anything to get elected for another term.

BTW, soldiers don't question their chain of command. They might gripe about amongst themselves but they don't complain up the chain. They also respect a commander at any level when he is doing something to protect them.

What makes you think Obama did not say anything to the commander of Fort Hood?

Air&Road · #5 04-08-2014, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

What makes you think Obama did not say anything to the commander of Fort Hood?

What makes you think that if he had, security would not have been tightened up? Orders such as that are pretty serious in the military.

t walgamuth · #6 04-08-2014, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

What makes you think that if he had, security would not have been tightened up? Orders such as that are pretty serious in the military.

Here is what you said in the previous post:check into, or see to, or ensure that, or report back to me on..... the security on that post.

That is not an order but a request and I would be very surprised if Obama did not do something very much like that when the other incident happened. I further imagine then that the commander did his checking and told the president what he was doing to insure better safety on the base.

Now will the security be beefed up in the future? I am willing to bet it will be if it is not already.

Now the other incident which you are calling a terrorist act..... I just have this to say....if he had a name like Billy Bob Smith and came from Texas would you be calling it a terrorist act or the act of a man who had slipped a few degrees off plumb?

Air&Road · #7 04-08-2014, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Here is what you said in the previous post:check into, or see to, or ensure that, or report back to me on..... the security on that post.

That is not an order but a request and I would be very surprised if Obama did not do something very much like that when the other incident happened. I further imagine then that the commander did his checking and told the president what he was doing to insure better safety on the base.

Now will the security be beefed up in the future? I am willing to bet it will be if it is not already.

Now the other incident which you are calling a terrorist act..... I just have this to say....if he had a name like Billy Bob Smith and came from Texas would you be calling it a terrorist act or the act of a man who had slipped a few degrees off plumb?

If billy Bob would have been yelling ala Akbar, yeah, I and anyone with common sense, would clearly recognize it as terrorism.

Since you've never been in the military, let me make something clear. When a superior officer ASKS you to do something rather than specifically says "that's an order," it is no less of an order. It is simply an order from an officer who chooses to issue the order politely.