FOX News: EXCLUSIVE: Odierno clarifies remarks, says Army considering arming recruiters after shooting
In an exclusive interview with Fox News, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who is set to retire as Army chief in August, clarified remarks he made in the wake of the Chattanooga shootings which left four Marines and one sailor dead.
He says the Army is in fact considering whether to arm recruiters if the legal restrictions are lifted.
"When it comes to recruiting stations, we are looking at it now -- what are we doing now to best protect them," Odierno said in a sit-down interview as he prepared to leave the Army after 39 years of service. "We will look at every avenue -- arming them, there is some authority issues with that so we have to look all the way through that."
Update: Top Generals Say Army Considering Arming Recruiters in Wake of Attack -- Washington Free Beacon
WNU Editor: The Pentagon's earlier comments raised a few eyebrows .... Pentagon to recruiters: 'Close blinds,' ditch uniforms to thwart attacks (WND). What's my take .... armed military recruiters is something that I have trouble accepting .... but the perception now is that it is open season for men and women in uniform, and regrettably this is the world that we live in today.
1 comment:
Very respectfully I'm not sure why you would have trouble accepting armed military recruiters. If it were up to me, all military personnel whether in or out of uniform on base or not on base would be expected to be armed at all times especially when on duty. When not on duty, they would be strongly encouraged to be armed. This policy should have been implemented BEFORE 9/11/01. After this attack, it seems it should have been a no brainer that these people should be armed at all times.
It's generally understood that a law enforcement officer in the United States can carry a firearm/gun anywhere at anytime whether on duty or not including in and out of supposedly "gun free" zones whether on duty or not. Furthermore he or she is generally expected to carry their firearm. Military personnel are little different than law enforcement personnel, as an enemy can attack at anytime and anywhere and our warriors need to be able to defend against this much as law enforcement personnel are expected to defend against criminals. Additionally military personnel are trained in the use of firearms and they've been taught to operate under very restrictive rules of engagement. As such, while there is always a risk as with any military or law enforcement operation that accidents will happen, the risk is minimal compared with the risk of not having these men and women not armed and ready to defend America at all times.
Additionally much as law enforcement personnel and their families are often the target of criminals military personnel are often targets of such elements as well as well those who would wish to harm America. As such, it seems the appropriate response would be to "have trouble accepting" a situation where military recruiters and other military personnel are not armed as opposed to a situation where they are.
Each country will need to make decisions such as this based upon their unique situations. Perhaps for Canada arming military recruiters and other military personnel may not make sense whereas for America such a situation clearly makes so much sense it should have been done long, long ago. We probably should be careful not to make inferences where we would apply our situations to another country who situation is vastly different than our own.
Your analyses are very good and thought provoking. Please continue your excellent work.
Post a Comment