Wednesday, April 09, 2014

Did he say that? Yes he did.

I commented on a forum yesterday:
Sweartagawd I heard ADM Mullen say something along the lines of "arms have no place on a military base" on Meet the Press Sunday. Can't be certain though, because it was hard to hear the TV over me yelling. It'll be another two months before the transcript is on the website, and I am hoping I was wrong.

The ghost of Patton did not slap the ADM right there on live TV, so maybe I misheard.
 
Someone then provided a link.

Holy... He really did say he was opposed to "routinely allowing arms on any base, military base, in the country."

Hey, maybe they could keep their ****ing TANKS at the police station and go check them out before a war. Wouldn't want any arms on base, after all.

How in the nine billion names of God does someone so hard-of-thinking become chairman of the ****ing Joint Chiefs Of Staff? Jesus wept, my life was in that man's hands for four years and it's suddenly, painfully apparent that he couldn't reason his way out of a paper bag if there was a neon arrow pointing at the opening. 
.

29 comments:

Armed Texan said...

Just about anyone looking to become an Admiral or General is a politician. Anyone who is actually confirmed these days is certainly a politician as it takes a lot of glad-handing (among other less savory tasks, I'm sure) to get the official OK from congress.

ParatrooperJJ said...

He was selected for one reason only - he would not oppose allow gays to serve openly...

Anonymous said...

How in the nine billion names of God does someone so hard-of-thinking become chairman of the ****ing Joint Chiefs Of Staff?

Easy, look at who his boss is!

MACVS2

Tam said...

"Easy, look at who his boss is!"

So you blame George Bush?

Tam said...

"He was selected for one reason only - he would not oppose allow gays to serve openly..."

Was that really that high of a priority in the Bush administration? Huh.

Anonymous said...

In Mullen, Dempsey and Amos you have the typical modern military yes man.

God help our troops.

Gerry

Anonymous said...

The Obama administration is perpetuating a mistake made by Slick Willie. Guess we know how much they value the life of a soldier. Just out of curiosity how many shooting rampages happened on military bases before Clinton decided that soldiers weren't to be trusted with weapons?

Aren't the Joint Chiefs confirmed by Congress thus making the Bush era appointments a compromise with the Demonrats?

Al_in_Ottawa

Tam said...

#ThanksObama

Anonymous said...

One word: Admiral.

TinCan Assassin said...

Apparently he cheated on his "Pour piss out of a boot, instructions on heel." test as an Ensign. Never should have made jg...

newrebeluniv said...

Generals and admirals are not just yes men and political flunkys. They are liberal in their core. They have had long successful careers in an environment that is essentially socialist in every way. Government planned communities. Government housing. Government schools pre- K to graduate school. Government health care, enforced. and a never questioned assumption that those with higher rank have the right to tell you what to do... all the time.

It is a myth that military officers are conservative. Most of them don't have a clue what real liberty in a free society looks like.

Boat Guy said...

Actually newrebel the GO/FO's are still a more diverse group - the real problem with Mullen is that he's a SWO - a "Surface Warfare" officer - and THEY tend toward hoplophobia as a group. The real problem is that SWO's have not been to a no-kidding WAR since 1945, so they - more than any other group I can think of - have NO clue what their business is - or should be.
Something happens too when these guys get "inside the Beltway". GEN Hugh Shelton (who was pretty good when he ran SOCCOM) went butt-up in submission when he "moved up" to Joint Chiefs - I remember thinking "Dude they're NOT gonna give you a fifth star, why not just tell the truth???"
There ARE exceptions to guys like Mullen but sadly they only prove the "rule"

Robert Fowler said...

" Clinton decided that soldiers weren't to be trusted with weapons".

You have to go a lot farther back than that. We weren't allowed to carry weapons when I served under Nixon. IIRC the practice started shortly after the war to end all wars (WWI).

Earl said...

For sure, as long as we aren't electing militia captains, and we aren't, the officer corps is always going to be a little bit specialer than the enlisted swine. So by the ancient rules of Confucius they have to be obeyed. And the enlisted will carry whatever weapons and ammunition they want, no matter the signs posted nor the expectations.

Mike Brahier said...

"Hey, maybe they could keep their ****ing TANKS at the police station and go check them out before a war."

I don't think the DHS needs anymore encouragement.

rickn8or said...

"Apparently he cheated on his "Pour piss out of a boot, instructions on heel." test as an Ensign. Never should have made jg...

His first division CPO didn't raise him right.

Anonymous said...

What would you expect from a navy pansy?

Anonymous said...

I kept my personal weapon in my quarters. I liked my nickle plated combat commander better than the very tired M1911A1 issued me in 1977, and got a lanyard ring installed on it. Used to amuse the locals when I used the lanyard ring with a magazine partially extended to open bottles of beer.

fast richard said...

After 9-11 we never quite made the transition from a military lead by peace time politicians to one lead by fighting generals and admirals. There were several who had real potential, but they are mostly gone now. We have a lot of refugees from a Gilbert and Sullivan Operetta now running the show.

JTwig said...

I'll stop fighting for firearms on "their" bases when they stop driving their tanks down "our" streets and their helicopters over "our" cities for practice.

Matt said...

He is a flag rank officer, therefore he is an idiot. He made all the gates in his career without a blemish and always agreed with the boss and never told,the boss something that might make the boss uncomfortable. When he became the boss,,he was treated the same, as a china doll that could be broken if exposed to the truth.

Marcus said...

I've seen a lot of this same thing from many senior military officers and it's driving me apoplectic. I wrote a short post on the subject here if anyone is interested:

http://justbarkingmad.com/?p=12918

Anonymous said...

"Easy, look at who his boss is!"

So you blame George Bush?

Nope, the current CiC. Political appointees reflect the belief systems of those over them. It's called survival. At least that's the way it was when I was unfortunate enough to work for political appointees.
macvs2

Scott_S said...

We expect better but can't seem to demand better. As confirmation to JCS takes a litteral act of congress maybe we could demand better.

Cargosquid said...

Mullen does not have a reputation as a great leader and is not liked by the lower ranks.

That said, the Navy in general hates the idea of guns on bases unless held by a guard or a LEO.

I mean....really? While other Navies were standing quarter deck watches with sub machine guns....we, the terrorist target...were still using old .45's and had 10 rounds available. And this is in FOREIGN ports...in the Med...notably Greece.

I visited other ships from France and Great Britain and wondered..."What do they know that we don't....since that brow guard is holding an automatic weapon?"

The simplest solution is to just add armed watchstanders to the watchbill.

Someone on another blog mentioned arming the officers.
Navy officers with pistols....

THAT's a scary thought.

Firehand said...

If I'm not mistaken, he's one of the rank-heavy assholes who told Congress "I've been talking to soldiers/sailors/marines/ and they would be happy to lose pay and benefits so as to get more training!"

The pure idiocy and ass-kissing to the Chief of that just about made me break my keyboard.
Hey, they think the enlisted swine would be happy to lost pay and benefits, why would they trust them with actual ARMS?

By the way, remember after the bombing of that ship in Yemen? Even after the effing bombing the watch couldn't point a weapon at an approaching boat until it actually 'did something hostile'... what's that old line about 'lions led by donkeys'?

Boat Guy said...

If you read his book on the Cole bombing the Skipper had a SIG in his coverall pocket for a few days after the bombing. That dude got absolutely f*cked over by the Navy before - and after - his ship was hit. If there were any justice his chain-of-command would have committed seppuku.

Brad K. said...

I think the military has a history of restricting weapons access, as a means to reduce stupid, "just messing around" accidents. There was a time draft boards flushed those "needing a firm guiding hand" into the military, to simplify life back home and protect special interests. I guess some rules just don't get re-evaluated in a timely manner.

I wonder if filing criminal charges of endangerment and reckless disregard of safety against post commanders that ban guns would make a few people rethink what they are doing? That would be my suggestion.

global village idiot said...

Lifer with Army - active duty and reserves. And I'll have nothing said against the squids. All it took to keep me out of the Navy was hearing "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald." If one of the Great Lakes can do that to a ship, one need only imagine what a freaking ocean can do to one.

Something no one seems to have realized is that there's a relationship between a servicemember's opinion of firearms and the nature of his or her primary weapon.

Put another way, the thing you get paid to use to kill people and break their stuff colors your opinion of individual arms.

I "grew up" around artillery. As such, the rifle was little more than a Damned Thing I had to keep account of when I wasn't calling-for-fire.

Folks like tankers, gun-bunnies, flyboys and the squids - all of whom ride their weapons to work and/or live in them - have a different relationship to the rifle, pistol or shotgun than those who carry their weapons.

gvi