U.S. troops asked to lay down weapons before meeting Panetta at Afghan base

posted at 9:56 pm on March 14, 2012 by Allahpundit

I have a hunch about what happened here but I’m interested in hearing from military readers. Is this SOP when the SecDef or some other bigwig comes to speak to you at a base?

CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta landed here Wednesday morning for an unannounced and tense visit, the first by a senior member of the Obama administration since an American soldier reportedly killed 16 Afghan civilians, mostly children and women…

In a sign of the nervousness surrounding Mr. Panetta’s trip, the Marines and other troops who were waiting in a tent for the defense secretary to speak were abruptly asked by their commander to get up, place their weapons — M-16 and M-4 automatic rifles and 9-mm pistols — outside the tent and then return unarmed. The commander, Sgt. Maj. Brandon Hall, told reporters he was acting on orders from superiors.

“All I know is, I was told to get the weapons out,” he said. Asked why, he replied, “Somebody got itchy, that’s all I’ve got to say. Somebody got itchy; we just adjust.”

When I first read it I thought they were worried that a U.S. soldier might go berserk and try to frag Panetta, as if the rampage last weekend against Afghan civilians had suddenly called the stability of the entire force into question. That would be a terrible insult to American troops — but I don’t think that’s what they were concerned about. More from the AP:

Afghan troops had already been told not to bring their guns in.

“Something has come to light,” Sgt. Maj. Brandon Hall told the troops. It was a highly unusual order, and some in the audience said they had never seen that happen before…

The official said the decision was made out of respect for troops from other countries, such as the Afghans, who are never allowed to bring guns into an event. It was not a request from Panetta or his security team, the official said.

My hunch: They were worried that an Afghan soldier, not an American, might try to kill Panetta, which is a totally reasonable fear. But since they’re desperate to rebuild trust between U.S. and Afghan forces after the Koran-burnings, the subsequent fraggings of American troops, and then the rampage on Sunday, they didn’t want to make their distrust of the Afghans conspicuous. So they decided to lay down a “no guns for anyone” rule to make it seem evenhanded. Could be that they’d also gotten a tip that an attempt on Panetta’s life was planned. According to UK news sources, a suicide bomber made it onto the runway as his plane was landing at a British base this morning and managed to set himself on fire in the attack. (Panetta was unharmed.) If they suspected something was coming but didn’t know how, little wonder that they’d want the guns out of Afghan hands. Disarming the Americans too is simply a smokescreen for that goal.

Or maybe I’m wrong and the White House really does think U.S. troops are, to a man, a rampage risk. In that case, they’d better come home a lot sooner than expected. And according to the NYT, they just might.

Update: A commenter notes that the AP piece says Afghans are never allowed to bring guns into an event like this. Right, but my point is that the White House and NATO are suddenly desperate to rebuild the trust between the two forces that’s been deteriorating over the last month. In the past that was less true so they might have been less sensitive to the implicit insult in saying that Afghans can’t be trusted with guns around an allied official. Disarming everyone, U.S. troops included, is a way to eliminate that slight.

Update: Helmand’s top NATO commander says he wanted to be evenhanded:

General Gurganus told reporters later that he had wanted a consistent policy for everyone in the tent, and that “I wanted to have the Marines look just like their Afghan partners,” noting, “You’ve got one of the most important people in the world in the room.” He insisted that his decision had had nothing to do with the massacre; later, defense officials said the decision had had nothing to do with the truck at the airfield.

An e-mailer makes a good point too. An Afghan soldier could surprise an American soldier by grabbing his sidearm and squeezing off a few shots before he’s taken down. The worry here, again, is the Afghans fragging Panetta, not our own guys.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Side arm…24/7 when in that country.

Just sayin.

Electrongod on March 14, 2012 at 10:00 PM

W.T.F?!!!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 10:00 PM

It’s close folks, prepare!

swimcoachmike on March 14, 2012 at 10:02 PM

I was on a forum and a Viet vet and Gulf War vet said this is standard procedure.

Personally I don’t know…

voiceofreason on March 14, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Maybe the Army should have borrowed some TSA guys to screen the Afghani’s for weapons……erh….but that would be profiling, and violate TSA policy.

So the smart play was to disarm combat soldiers in a war zone so that “men of middle eastern descent” wouldn’t be offended.

Let me tell you what happened there today: Somebody took notes, and at this very moment someone named Mohammed, squatting in a mud hut is planning on how to sneak weapons into the next VIP visit…knowing that his guys will be the only ones with guns.

“Smartest Guys in the Room”

BobMbx on March 14, 2012 at 10:03 PM

. So they decided to lay down a “no guns for anyone” rule to make it seem evenhanded.

Then what’s the point in having our un-armed soldiers greeting Panetta?

What protection does Panetta have.

Would this be the case if Obama walked off that plane?

Electrongod on March 14, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Oh HEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO they di’in’t! Good gawd! Did they give a heads up to the afgannies that they wouldn’t have their freakin weapons?????? Sh!t, I am really tired of this PC so we don’t hurt the mooslimes feelings krap…..grrrrrrr….I may be wrong, but I don’t think so. Please correct me if I am.

sicoit on March 14, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Trust?

Bmore on March 14, 2012 at 10:03 PM

As the Lefties like to say ” If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Bruno Strozek on March 14, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Insanity!

JPeterman on March 14, 2012 at 10:04 PM

A no gun zone is not a good place to be.

retiredeagle on March 14, 2012 at 10:04 PM

W.T.F?!!!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Winning the future?

Bmore on March 14, 2012 at 10:04 PM

The really hard part of this trip was trying to convince Panetta not to bow or curtsey when he meets the misc local sultans, chiefs and warlords.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 10:05 PM

This must have been another directive that Panetta got from some international authority…

d1carter on March 14, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Just one more way to insult our troops in my view!

bluemarlin on March 14, 2012 at 10:05 PM

The official said the decision was made out of respect for troops from other countries, such as the Afghans, who are never allowed to bring guns into an event. It was not a request from Panetta or his security team, the official said.

What a bunch of schmucks! So if an unfriendly Afghani sneaks in a weapon; we have a bunch of unarmed soldiers who are just frickin target practice.. dumbasses!

melle1228 on March 14, 2012 at 10:05 PM

I guess you’re just a lot nicer person than I, AP. The article states that Afghanis were never allowed to bring weapons to events…so what’s the big deal? It was a stupid move. They created a “no gun zone” in the middle of a freakin’ war for cryin’ out loud. That works out real well in schools too.

No one in this administration, especially Obama, has ANY respect for our military. I am proud of my son for serving his country, but I wish to God he had a CinC who gave a rat’s ass about him.

IrishEi on March 14, 2012 at 10:06 PM

the White House really does think U.S. troops are, to a man, a rampage risk.

It’s this. The White House/democrats hate/s our military.

SouthernGent on March 14, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Maybe the Army should have borrowed some TSA guys to screen the Afghani’s for weapons……erh….but that would be profiling, and violate TSA policy.
BobMbx on March 14, 2012 at 10:03 PM

If the TSA were ever even capable of finding a weapon that might be an idea.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 10:07 PM

The administration is a bunch of ninnies. Just sayin’…

beatcanvas on March 14, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Trust?

Bmore on March 14, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Trust, or Blind trust…as with Mitt’s fortune…OK..
No trust when your life may be in stake….

Electrongod on March 14, 2012 at 10:08 PM

There comes a day when the analysis of motives pales in the light of higher truths…

“Is that Freedom Rock, baby? Well, turn it up!”

derit on March 14, 2012 at 10:08 PM

I was on a forum and a Viet vet and Gulf War vet said this is standard procedure.
Personally I don’t know…
voiceofreason on March 14, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Free Republic has a lot of vet commenters, likely find out fastest there.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 10:08 PM

In an unrelated story, the Secret Service Presidential Detail will now be disarmed. The move is to make all the people at political functions feel just like the agents. Not. /s

barnone on March 14, 2012 at 10:09 PM

So, best case scenario is they wanted to make a show of unity by including Afghan troops. But the Afghan troops can’t be trusted with weapons. So in order to provide a display of (actually non-existent) unity they have all the US troops disarmed too.

Is there anything about the Obama administration that doesn’t depend on false narratives?

Time to face the realities on the ground in Afghanistan. The consequences of failing to do so are already tragic.

novaculus on March 14, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Did Panetta have any armed security with him? If so, were their weapons concealed? More and more, this “war” is becoming about the hurt feelings of a bunch of people with poor impulse control. As any mother of 3 year-old kids can tell you, making everything about their feelings is a recipe for disaster.

Time to come home.

Nom de Boom on March 14, 2012 at 10:10 PM

The administration is a bunch of ninnies. Just sayin’…

beatcanvas on March 14, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Understatement. How you doing?

Bmore on March 14, 2012 at 10:10 PM

The Lyin kINGS Defense Sec. is afraid of his troops, what intell do they have, they should both resign!

ConcealedKerry on March 14, 2012 at 10:10 PM

I’ve never had to, but I’ve never had anyone higher ranking than the Commandant visit the area I was at in a combat zone.

Hog Wild on March 14, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Political Correctness gone amok

Time to come home….

Electrongod on March 14, 2012 at 10:11 PM

I guess you’re just a lot nicer person than I, AP. The article states that Afghanis were never allowed to bring weapons to events…so what’s the big deal?

Yeah, but now they’re desperate to rebuild the trust between the two forces that’s been deteriorating over the last month. In the past that was less true so they might have been less sensitive to the implicit insult in saying that Afghans can’t be trusted with guns around an allied official. Disarming U.S. troops too is a way of easing that insult.

Allahpundit on March 14, 2012 at 10:11 PM

So what do they use to stop an Afghan who sneaks in weapons?

Ukiah on March 14, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Something else that occurs to me: if the Afghan troops can’t be trusted with their weapons, are they really going to be impressed with a show of evenhanded distrust? Or are they just going to laugh about it as they plan the next fragging?

Nom de Boom on March 14, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Gentlemen! No fighting in the War Room!!!

No weapons in the war zone, either, apparently.

A strangelovian world we live in.

coldwarrior on March 14, 2012 at 10:11 PM

So now the terrorists might get their feelings hurt and therefore American troops need to be treated just like terrorists?

sharrukin on March 14, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Don’t make too big a deal out of this, security protocols vary even in theater. There are a number of reasons this could happen. And we don’t know if attendance was mandatory or if there was just a minimum number of volunteers that had to be met. I’ve been through this.

M240H on March 14, 2012 at 10:12 PM

If it’s standard procedure or not, they made a show of it THIS time after the US Soldier attack on Sunday. This shows ME, and I have an opinion, that our soldiers cannot be trusted, according to their superiors, and they are being treated the same as a bunch of fourth century savages that believe women have no rights and they can marry children.
Perfect. It’s time to leave.

RovesChins on March 14, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Shameful.

kingsjester on March 14, 2012 at 10:12 PM

We disarm ourselves because our putative “allies” can’t be trusted?

INSANITY is the name of this mission.

And Obama is the commander of it.

profitsbeard on March 14, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Did Panetta have any armed security with him? If so, were their weapons concealed? More and more, this “war” is becoming about the hurt feelings of a bunch of people with poor impulse control. As any mother of 3 year-old kids can tell you, making everything about their feelings is a recipe for disaster.

Time to come home.

Nom de Boom on March 14, 2012 at 10:10 PM

You can bet he did.

Disgraceful.

BakerAllie on March 14, 2012 at 10:13 PM

So far, it seems the Afghans have reacted more violently to the accidental burning of Korans than they did to the murder of 16 innocent people.

Mark1971 on March 14, 2012 at 10:13 PM

So they decided to lay down a “no guns for anyone” rule to make it seem evenhanded.

Gun grabbers in a war zone.

Bizarro world.

Bitter Clinger on March 14, 2012 at 10:13 PM

As I recall, at Fort Hood there was only 1 person in the room with a weapon.

diogenes on March 14, 2012 at 10:13 PM

This could be worse than having our military under a French command.

antipc on March 14, 2012 at 10:13 PM

So what do they use to stop an Afghan who sneaks in weapons?

Ukiah on March 14, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Harsh language??

Bitter Clinger on March 14, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Understatement. How you doing?

Bmore on March 14, 2012 at 10:10 PM

I’ll email you… it’s that good.

beatcanvas on March 14, 2012 at 10:14 PM

The official said the decision was made out of respect for troops from other countries, such as the Afghans, who are never allowed to bring guns into an event.

Why not have our women soldiers wear burqas to, while we’re busy not offending the Afghans?

Thanks President Muslim.

fogw on March 14, 2012 at 10:15 PM

I have never heard of disarming for a SoD, SoS, or even a visiting POTUS. Still, I don’t see the harm in it especially in light of the fact that an Afghan nut actually did make a weak-azz attempt on Mr. Panetta’s life. My vote: No big whoop.

Sgt. Vulcha

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 14, 2012 at 10:15 PM

I don’t buy it. I think they absolutely were worried about an American snapping. In any case the optics totally reek. It comes across as a smear on the whole military.

Southernblogger on March 14, 2012 at 10:15 PM

A strangelovian world we live in.

coldwarrior on March 14, 2012 at 10:11 PM

If thats true, then Biden can only be Sgt. Batguano.

I must have watched that movie 20 times before that dawned on me. I wonder how many other things I’ve missed.

BobMbx on March 14, 2012 at 10:15 PM

So far, it seems the Afghans have reacted more violently to the accidental burning of Korans than they did to the murder of 16 innocent people.

Mark1971 on March 14, 2012 at 10:13 PM

That’s another good point. It’s not like these people are great at keeping score.

I mean, Abdullah was going to murder them all, but now that they’ve disarmed their soldiers I’m not so sure they aren’t good guys after all.

Nom de Boom on March 14, 2012 at 10:16 PM

So they decided to lay down a “no guns for anyone” rule to make it seem evenhanded.

Yeah, well someone “high up” needs to get an M4 carbine shoved where the sun don’t shine. The Afgans get upset, tough shit. Who’s troops have been shooting ours in the back? Get over it. If given that order, I’d have left. Leon could address an EMPTY tent.

I was at Camp Eagle, Christmas 1969. We had just come back into base camp after a field op. Went right from the landing strip to front row, center of the Bob Hope Christmas show. NO ONE told us to store our weapons ‘outside’.

GarandFan on March 14, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Yeah, but now they’re desperate to rebuild the trust between the two forces that’s been deteriorating over the last month. In the past that was less true so they might have been less sensitive to the implicit insult in saying that Afghans can’t be trusted with guns around an allied official. Disarming U.S. troops too is a way of easing that insult.

Allahpundit on March 14, 2012 at 10:11 PM

I’d agree with you except they had an alleged attack where a guy tried to drive a truck etc. If another stealth attack happens, who the heck is going to do anything since they are all unarmed. And I don’t see how this time the Afghans feelings were taken into account since they are NEVER allowed weapons.

melle1228 on March 14, 2012 at 10:18 PM

I have a hunch about what happened here but I’m interested in hearing from military readers. Is this SOP when the SecDef or some other bigwig comes to speak to you at a base?

I have flown for the SECDEC and attended speeches and formations for all manor of US and Foreign dignitaries and I’ve only been disarmed once.

For Hillary Clinton.

hawkdriver on March 14, 2012 at 10:18 PM

In the past that was less true so they might have been less sensitive to the implicit insult in saying that Afghans can’t be trusted with guns around an allied official. Disarming U.S. troops too is a way of easing that insult.

Allahpundit on March 14, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Maybe it’s the Rambo in me….

But didn’t our ally friends, the Afghans, shoot and kill our soldiers first a couple weeks ago? Over carbon emissions?

Walk softy and carry a big stick.

Electrongod on March 14, 2012 at 10:18 PM

I was at Camp Eagle, Christmas 1969. We had just come back into base camp after a field op. Went right from the landing strip to front row, center of the Bob Hope Christmas show. NO ONE told us to store our weapons ‘outside’.

GarandFan on March 14, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Thanks for your service.

Nom de Boom on March 14, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Sorry AP but it doesn’t work that way… Making your troops disarm to make the Afghani’s “feel” safer shows that you can’t trust your own military. Worse that you can’t CONTROL your own military.

What message is that sending?

What happens when the Afghannis leave the tent? Whoa, the soldiers are armed again! Oh noes!

It’s political theater that absolutely sends the wrong and very dangerous message.

Skywise on March 14, 2012 at 10:19 PM

This is likely going to turn out to be a good thing…..it leaves an imprint on the troops as to what this administration really thinks of them.

subsonic on March 14, 2012 at 10:19 PM

GarandFan on March 14, 2012 at 10:17 PM

That’s because Mr. Hope loved and trusted you guys.

kingsjester on March 14, 2012 at 10:19 PM

I’ll email you… it’s that good.

beatcanvas on March 14, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Cool, I can always use good news. ; )

Bmore on March 14, 2012 at 10:19 PM

hawkdriver on March 14, 2012 at 10:18 PM

And what’s the name of that other administration that Panetta worked for?

kingsjester on March 14, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Harsh language??

Bitter Clinger on March 14, 2012 at 10:14 PM

LOL– That reminds me of Judge Dred when they are first trying to apprehend Wesly Snipes..

melle1228 on March 14, 2012 at 10:21 PM

So what do they use to stop an Afghan who sneaks in weapons?

Ukiah on March 14, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Trick question? A Marine of course!

ConcealedKerry on March 14, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Personally, I would like to view it as this although I know it is not:

“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”

I would LOVE for the government to get a little “itchy,” especially when it starts acting tyrannical.

Resist We Much on March 14, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Allahpundit on March 14, 2012 at 10:11 PM

And making our troop sitting ducks.
I’m sick of political correctness. I’m sick of the muslim countries who’s @sses were protecting giving us snit, and it’s time to bring our troops home and let the 9th century cave dwellers destroy each other.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 10:22 PM

So far, it seems the Afghans have reacted more violently to the accidental burning of Korans than they did to the murder of 16 innocent people.

Mark1971 on March 14, 2012 at 10:13 PM

You weren’t supposed to notice that. Now if we had good Generals, that is a piece of intel that we should be exploiting.

How do you smoke out the muzzies hiding in the Tora Bora caves? Light a pile of Korans on fire…then carpet bomb the entire area.

Don’t invite them to a gun fight….just plant hundreds of billboards with Allah cartoons on them, all perfectly covered by skilled snipers. Talk about fish in a barrel.

BobMbx on March 14, 2012 at 10:22 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 10:22 PM
‘whose’

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 10:22 PM

melle1228 on March 14, 2012 at 10:21 PM

That was Demolition Man.

kingsjester on March 14, 2012 at 10:22 PM

I’ve never experienced this or heard about this happening anywhere else (and I’ve moved some very high ranking officials around), but I can’t say it surprises me either.

Stupid idea, in my opinion, but it doesn’t strike me as being done out of fear of a friendly soldier going berserk.

BadgerHawk on March 14, 2012 at 10:23 PM

How can you rebuild trust with a culture that has always hated you?

All the soldiers at Fort Hood were disarmed too. Did that help?

PattyJ on March 14, 2012 at 10:23 PM

For what it’s worth, BlackFive said it didn’t have to do with the runway incident.

wte9 on March 14, 2012 at 10:23 PM

AP your hunch is wrong. This is a BS story. Gotta love civilians.

tuffy on March 14, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Is this SOP when the SecDef or some other bigwig comes to speak to you at a base?

My vote would say yes. And it is his people making these changes to standing orders.

Gerald Ford came to my military college years after being in office (1980′s). And, of course, a military college holds a parade for such a distinguished visitor. In other words, ranks of college students passing in review with rifles on shoulders.
Unlike the norm for these events, somebody had to verify by visual inspection that none of us actually had a firing pin in our rifles. These were weapons that were produced for WWII and as apt to harm the shooter than the target. Yet, even for all that there was a security check.

So I am not surprised that Panetta’s security people didn’t want to have weapons close at hand during his speech.

I’m just pissed off that a political apointee with no understanding of the military is SECDEF instead of a qualified individual. Panetta constantly sells the military out for political expediency. We need somebody in that office that understands the politics but also is an advocate for the troops.

Happy Nomad on March 14, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Harsh language??

Bitter Clinger on March 14, 2012 at 10:14 PM

LOL– That reminds me of Judge Dred when they are first trying to apprehend Wesly Snipes..

melle1228 on March 14, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Or Frosty in “Aliens”.

BobMbx on March 14, 2012 at 10:24 PM

I have flown for the SECDEC and attended speeches and formations for all manor of US and Foreign dignitaries and I’ve only been disarmed once.

For Hillary Clinton.

hawkdriver on March 14, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Twenty years and my husband says the same thing. When he was in Kosovo, he flew VIPs. Never disarmed. The ONLY time he has ever been disarmed(they took bolts out of their weapons) was when Bill Clinton came to speak in Hawaii in I believe 1997..

melle1228 on March 14, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Let me tell you what happened there today: Somebody took notes, and at this very moment someone named Mohammed, squatting in a mud hut is planning on how to sneak weapons into the next VIP visit…knowing that his guys will be the only ones with guns.

BobMbx on March 14, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Worked well for Nidal Hassan

iconoclast on March 14, 2012 at 10:24 PM

To hell with building trust between the two forces. What about the lack of trust for our guys by the Oministration?
Come home guys, looks like were gonna need ya’ll here.

OkieDoc on March 14, 2012 at 10:25 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 10:22 PM
‘whose’

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Understand….

Electrongod on March 14, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Mark1971 on March 14, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Silly, many of those victims were WOMEN. Women aren’t half as important as a BOOK.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Were Panetta’s security detail of most-likely former military asked to lay down their weapons too, just in case they decided to start whacking Marines?

Bishop on March 14, 2012 at 10:26 PM

I’m interested in hearing from military readers.

f*cking horsesh!t, Allah.

how’s that.

what’s hawkdriver say? same thing? I’m so pissed i haven’t even looked.

ted c on March 14, 2012 at 10:26 PM

melle1228 on March 14, 2012 at 10:21 PM

That was Demolition Man.

kingsjester on March 14, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Damn you’re right. Old age is making me mix up Sly Stallone movies :)

melle1228 on March 14, 2012 at 10:27 PM

I don’t know why I have this feeling and I have nothing but a general distrust for anything this administration says to support it, but no explosives were found on the guy or in the stolen “coalition” vehicle he drove onto the runway this morning as Panetta arrived in his plane. For it to have been an Afghani, for him to even know Panetta was coming he would have at least had to have been a part of the Afghani national army, and that seems like a detail we’d find out about pretty quick, no? As I go further, remember, no explosives at all found, no explosions, the guy just raced up, three it in a ditch, and set himself on fire. Not an unheard of or fiercely uncommon form of protest.

However, only days ago the strains placed on our soldiers over there caused one of them to snap. The policies and constraints on these guys are literally costing them their lives in some cases and devaluing it to the point of free targets in others. An afghan civilian would have no way of knowing the Secretary of Defense was on that plane, and if it was an afghan army personel it would have been international news. Combine that with the soldiers being disarmed before meeting him in what I can’t ever remember being precedented, but I could be wrong, and I begin to wonder if maybe just maybe it might have actually been a US soldier in that car, self-immolating, essentially symbolically saying, “This is how worthless you’ve made my life”, as that form of protest always has the intent to say?

No doubt, pure speculation and conspiracy theory with nothing but distrust to base it on. But this is just a weird string of events, and something doesn’t really seem to make sense here. Something is missing from this story, no matter how wrong I may be on my paranoia, and that much should seem crystal clear to everybody I’d think.

There’s more to the stories about this day than just what’s been presented here. Something more to it. Lazy explanations that it was just them being disrespectful and distrustful of the troops doesn’t seem to be enough, there was a reason, and we clearly don’t know what it is, or what has actually happened beneath the surface of the story presented to us.

Boomer_Sooner on March 14, 2012 at 10:27 PM

I was in Bagram when laura bush came–NO change in policy for her arrival.

that’s how we rolled.

ted c on March 14, 2012 at 10:28 PM

If i was one of those soliders in that situation and was told to leave my weapon, i would be insulted..it really does look bad…they are in a freaking war zone for crying out loud

sadsushi on March 14, 2012 at 10:28 PM

melle1228 on March 14, 2012 at 10:27 PM

I understand. The Expendables 2 will be out soon with Norris and Van Damme added to the cast.

kingsjester on March 14, 2012 at 10:29 PM

It doesn’t make a lot of sense, why would the enemy be aware of the Secretary of Defenses travel plans,(infiltration?) and make it onto the tarmac when Panetta’s plane landed? It looks more like multiple bases have been infiltrated – compromised. Compromised to the point the Marines can’t have their weapons with them, because they would be near the Afghans at the meeting with Panetta? The Afghans might what? Grab one or more of the Marine’s weapons, and turn on them in the meeting? It doesn’t make sense, the Afghans are never allowed to be armed, there wouldn’t be an expectation of unarmed Marines, in fact they would expect them to be armed.

Have things degrade this badly are things this hinky in Afghanistan?

Dr Evil on March 14, 2012 at 10:29 PM

ted c on March 14, 2012 at 10:28 PM

The Bushes love and trust our Best and Brightest. He used to visit Walter Reed…with no cameras present.

kingsjester on March 14, 2012 at 10:30 PM

I have flown for the SECDEC and attended speeches and formations for all manor of US and Foreign dignitaries and I’ve only been disarmed once.

For Hillary Clinton.

hawkdriver on March 14, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Interesting….
My brother was in the Army and on post when Reagen made that famous speech in Berlin. Bring down that Wall.
He was armed.

Electrongod on March 14, 2012 at 10:30 PM

no words .

trailortrash on March 14, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Harsh language??

Bitter Clinger on March 14, 2012 at 10:14 PM

LOL– That reminds me of Judge Dred when they are first trying to apprehend Wesly Snipes..

melle1228 on March 14, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Or Frosty in “Aliens”.

BobMbx on March 14, 2012 at 10:24 PM

I also like the scene in “The Rock” where Nic Cage says to the FBI guy about Sean Connery “He’s got a gun” and the FBI guy says back “What have you got, a friggin’ water pistol?”

Bitter Clinger on March 14, 2012 at 10:32 PM

VA Tech was a “gun free zone” ….
you see how that worked out.

I’ll say it again, f*cking horsesh!t. You recruit and train a Marine to be a stone cold bada$$, then the boss man comes into the hooch and he afraid of you. Way to build morale, fellas.

I’m pissed and I’m drinkin’, stop me before I say something I regret. Its safer in a hooch full of armed Marines than most places elsewhere.

ted c on March 14, 2012 at 10:32 PM

melle1228 on March 14, 2012 at 10:24 PM

What does your hubby fly? Badger and I fly the Mike Model Black Hawk.

hawkdriver on March 14, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Read the Ulsterman report, the Insider today.

ConcealedKerry on March 14, 2012 at 10:32 PM

i’m done with this one. you know my vote.

ted c on March 14, 2012 at 10:32 PM

After what happened last week, I don’t blame Panetta.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 14, 2012 at 10:33 PM

I remember when Rummy came to visit us (1/75 Ranger Batallion) back during his first term as SecDef.

I imagine he would have raised hell if we HADN’T been armed to the teeth.

Nor did we lay down arms when some congresscritter or diplodunk came for a photo op.

LegendHasIt on March 14, 2012 at 10:34 PM

SECDEF Rumsfeld came to see us once in Bagram, no worries.

ted c on March 14, 2012 at 10:34 PM

I remember when Rummy came to visit us (1/75 Ranger Batallion) back during his first term as SecDef.

I imagine he would have raised hell if we HADN’T been armed to the teeth.

Nor did we lay down arms when some congresscritter or diplodunk came for a photo op.

LegendHasIt on March 14, 2012 at 10:34 PM

oh, 1st term, I saw him at 1/75 during his 2nd term. RLTW.

ted c on March 14, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Camp Leatherneck Chicago

or Camp New York (but no one was jailed for checking in their weapon)

John Kettlewell on March 14, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3