McChrystal says ‘serious action’ needed on gun control

[fatbuckRTO]

I heard a lot about how "badass" McChrystal was in Iraq, and how he really cared about getting the job done. Then I got to Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan, where under McChrystal's leadership no American serviceman was allowed leave the gate except for the "security" forces on their pre-determined, pre-scheduled, identical-every-day vehicle "patrols." No one could bring the fight to the enemy, unless they were pilots or Special Forces. Then McChrystal decided that the main obstacle to mission accomplishment in Afghanistan was the fast food restaurants at various bases, and closed them down (left the Starbucks-wannabe fatty coffee shop for the officers, though). That was his contribution before he got fired for idiocy. He took away the Burger King.

Now I'm supposed to take his thoughts on gun control as some sort of valid contribution to the national discussion? If cheeseburgers are outlawed, only outlaws will have cheeseburgers, General. And apparently, if they're under your command, even soldiers don't need to carry assault rifles. When would they ever use them?




McChrystal says ‘serious action’ needed on gun control


By Claudine Zap | The Lookout – 4 hrs ago


Speaking on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" Tuesday, Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said some weapons should be carried only by soldiers, not civilians.

"I spent a career carrying typically either an M16, and later an M4 carbine," he said. "And an M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. And that's what our soldiers ought to carry."

The general added, "I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look. I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want, but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we've got to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."

The general, who had to resign his position as commander of the U.S. Forces in Afghanistan after a Rolling Stone magazine profile in 2010 that included unflattering comments about the Obama administration, is back in the public eye to promote his book, "My Share of the Task."

The former military man told the show, “I think serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges, and I just don’t think that’s enough.”

Asked what his message would be to the NRA and the House Judiciary Committee, he said, “I think we have to look at legislation. The number of people in America killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. And I don’t think we’re a bloodthirsty culture, and so I think we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people.”




http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...174328785.html

[Dave]

What a fucking idiot

[OneSickPsycho]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

[Homeslice]

No one could bring the fight to the enemy, unless they were pilots or Special Forces.

What other types of people were based there?

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

What other types of people were based there?

I assume you mean at Bagram specifically. It's a base of 10,000 some odd personnel, if not more. A lot of those, possibly half, are contractors. That said, Bagram houses all MOS's and all types of military units, except maybe cook companies (food services are handled by contractors, for probably 5x the cost). There are military cooks at Bagram, but they're assigned to security. Go figure.

Bagram has infantry, artillery, air wings and support (obviously), intel, medical, and special operations forces. All four services are represented. While I was there, Bagram took indirect fire (usually 105mm rockets) at least once a month. In more than one case, security personnel watched the enemy set up the rockets, launch, and leave unobstructed. When the base was attacked directly by about a dozen Taliban in May of 2010, the only resistance they had was from special operations units. The guard towers never fired a shot. If there hadn't been Green Berets and SEALs on the base, there would have been a lot of dead Americans that day. The point is, the enemy was there, and we had the capabilities to engage them. We just didn't.

Don't get me wrong, there are places in Afghanistan that are hot and heavy. I've been told that the Marines in Helmand were/are still engaged in offensive operations. But almost without fail, everywhere else it is defensive battles. And barely that. When my team was sent out to a smaller COP, the Army unit we were with was refused the use of their .50 cal machine gun when they came under fire (it could have eliminated the Taliban firing on them from the cover of a kulat). They had to bed down and wait for air support, which missed. Every time. This happened on every single patrol they made. Enemy contact, take cover, wait for air support. Is it any wonder that COP was hit with a coordinated, multi-phase attack later in the month? That was in addition to near daily bombardment from mortars and rockets.

But the problem was Burger King. That's what was keeping us from accomplishing the mission. Not hiding our heads in the sand. Not a systemic misallocation of resources, assets, and capabilities. Not a complete and utter failure to apply lessons-learned from Iraq to the Afghan TAO. Not moron captains that spin up entire infantry companies to engage targets that had already been captured, and were currently on base. Not HUMINT sergeants who call their girlfriends stateside to give them play-by-plays of their "secret" missions, during the mission.

It was Burger King.

[fatbuckRTO]

Sorry, that's been brewing for a while. My point is, McChrystal is overrated and overbilled, from where I sit.

[Homeslice]

Ok just asking, because you had implied that there were people at Bagram who could fight who were being held back, so I was just making sure they were combat units, rather than just pilots, mechanics, cooks, etc.

Any idea why the refusal on the .50 cal?

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Any idea why the refusal on the .50 cal?

That's a common occurance across the theater. The general idea is that there will be too much "collateral damage" from the use of .50 cals, MK-19's (automatic grenade launchers), and other weapons that are very effective at eliminating enemy threats for the same reason: "collateral damage". A mud hut makes a decent cover from an M-16 / M-4, and often even a 240G, but a .50 cal would make short work of the hut and anyone hiding behind it shooting at Americans.

How that tracks, when the alternative method used was to drop a JDAM on them,* I have no clue. Command decisions, whatareyougonnado...

By the time we were pulling out of Iraq, I think the list of weapons that you couldn't use was longer than the list that you could.

Interesting side notes on collateral damage; at that COP we were paying the locals for damages caused by Taliban rocket strikes. Very often they would miss our base and hit the surrounding village, but it was our fault for being there and tempting them to attack us in the first place. At one point, some locals even came to claim a motorcycle that was seized by Special Forces because it was used during an attack on one of their patrols. They got the bike back.



* By the time air support got there, the attackers had dispersed and "disappeared."

[Homeslice]

Too much collateral damage from a machine gun, but less from air support? Seems odd to me. Plus it's the air attacks that have been getting all the bad press.