U.S. Marines never disarm in a combat zone, never, not for any reason or event. Yesterday 400 Marines were ordered to disarm in Afghanistan during a visit from the Secretary of Defense. The only logical truthful reason for this was that there was a fear that one or more Marines would kill the Secretary.
So many things are going wrong in Afghanistan that we can't keep count anymore. The Marines themselves have had two incidents just recently, the Marine Snipers standing in front of a Nazi SS flag, and the video of Marines urinating on dead Taliban.
People can make this a partisan political thing disregarding the painful truth at the core of the matter, and that truth is that we have been at war for far too long and it has taken it's toll on our troops. Our troops are psychologically losing it. We need to get out of these wars now. The fact is that the longer wars drag on, the more events involving atrocities occur. This is just historical fact, and you cannot place the blame on anyone for this other than the conditions of prolonged war itself.
This is Vietnam all over again, and everything that went with it. In 1973 I joined the Marines. When I started training we were being trained for Vietnam, and we were already scheduled to go over there. Halfway through training we were told that we were starting to pull out of Vietnam and that we would not being going over. Once I was an actual Marine and in the Fleet Marine Force, I started to meet combat veteran Marines who had come back home. They were crazy, some were actual homicidal maniacs. This condition was not their fault, it was the war, what they had seen, and what they had done.
This what we have today. No excuses, just the truth.

What does this tell the troops. Hey you can die for us but we do not trust you. Sorry but he should be removed and replaced, Period!!! I have never seen such disrespect to service men and women from a government official. As far as Afgan officials go, if they had a problem they should not have been on USA run MILITARY BASE. What would you expect, school kids with water guns! Either way it does not matter, the Defense Secretary is ultimately responsible and should have known the perception this would have created. DOD employees have to take courses on public perception, so how could he not know.

For those that are having trouble reading. Try to get past the headline before commenting.

"Major General Mark Gurganus told reporters at Camp Leatherneck that he had given the order because the two dozen Afghan soldiers also there were unarmed and he did not want to treat them differently."

Hey I think it's fair for them to leave their weapons outside before entering the tent after all Panetta had to leave his "integrity" and "intelligence" out once he joined the administration. So now everyone in the tent was unarmed.

Uh, Justin, you sure Secretary Panetta is "your" defense secretary? Not to sound suspicious, but Americans spell the word "behavior" without a "u". The British/foreign spelling is "behaviour." You American or just trying to inflame a dialogue?

Well, at least there are a few people on this comment thread who actually read the article or want more information before passing judgment. Bashing Panetta's more fun though, isn't it?

Acually the article does say who gave the order, What can be asked is who gave it to him.

Major General Mark Gurganus told reporters at Camp Leatherneck that he had given the order because the two dozen Afghan soldiers also there were unarmed and he did not want to treat them differently

What they need to do is stop bring in our troops as background fill in's when some big shot goes over there.

'ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PEOPLE IN THE WORLD?" REALLY,PAMETTA? It is a sad day when the secretaey of defense will not trust his own troops not to shoot his phoney, miserable butt off!

What a great non-story.

2006, Mosul Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld visited troops.

Guess what, no weapons allowed.

I doubt that Panetta himself had anything to do with this. This was just some officer covering his own ass.

THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION IS IN OVER THEIR HEADS! In fact ever since the "BUSHES",to include the "BAMA" is in over their heads and Panetta thinks you need the worlds permission to go to war,not the Congress of these United States! We have total know nothings driving our bus!

One other factor that may have not been acknowledged publicly is space considerations inside the tent.

Two hundred Marines plus others in a moderately large tent is going to make for a fairly full house. Our men aren't carrying M1903 'Springfields's or M1 'Garand' rifles anymore...the M16 rifles and M4 carbines in use today are, by comparison, bulkier than the classic rifles were, especially with forward vertical grips and a variety of optical sights, weapon mounted lights, and lasers attached. The extra 'personal space' required for each armed Marine could make that tent quite crowded. No weapons, they can stand much closer to each other without risk of injuring each other with the sharp and hard corners and edges of the weapons slung over their shoulders.

This is what happens when you make someone who has never spent a day in his life in the military and knows absolutely nothing about the military or military culture the Secretary of Defense. Making Panetta the SecDef was one of the most absurd appointments Obama has made. Panetta is not even remotely qualified to be SecDef. Prior to being SecDef, Panetta had absolutely zero experience working with the military. He had never been and under secretary or assistant secretary or even worked in any capacity for the military. How in the hell can anyone think that he is qualified to lead the military. The fact that he had Marines disarm while gathered in a large group, can you say target, in a combat zone shows just how unqualified he is to be in the position. This move also showed a tremendous amount of disrespect and distrust of these men who are over their risking their lives in service to their country. This is not the kind of message the SecDef should be sending to the US Marine Corps and the rest of the US military. They should have left him where he was at the CIA and made Patraeus SecDef. At least then we would have someone calling the shots for our military how has some understanding of the military.

As the crapola hits the fan on this, Watch how the Maj Gen. that gave the order becomes the scrape goat on this. Politics and the military just don't mix well. I still would love to know who gave it to him .

I would'nt go to the john over there unarmed. Just because 200 Afgan soldiers left there guns outside,does'nt mean one of them could'nt have been an insurgent with a suicide vest on. DTA (Dont trust anyone)

The US does NOT trust anyone, period. The soldiers are just some tool for this country/big corporations, they are trained to kill and be killed.

Interesting. That security thing sure has gotten complicated- secure from the outside as well as within. Kind of makes me want to know what he's going to say to the marines.

Kind of like your boss saying, "I'll see you tomorrow. Say, if you could bring in some boxes- we might want to shuffle some things around. We'll talk."

I would like to see the marines decide to skip the publicity stunt rather than disarming. Let Panetta talk to a near empty tent.

He said he had given the order because the two dozen Afghan soldiers also there were unarmed and he did not want to treat them differently.

Read the article people! It had nothing to do with Panetta not trusting Marines.

Sheeesh, the same guy who is supposed to "direct" our Armed Forces brave men and women into battle and has the GALL to tell these Marines to disarm, FEARING for his own safety.

And this is the same guy who wants our military force deployment to be controlled by the International (U.N.) community BEFORE our very own Congress.

It is time Mr. Panetta, along with other disgraceful, shameful, bleeding heart Liberal Cabinet members to submit their resignations IMMEDIATELY. However, I have other words for Mr. Panetta and it is NOT Liberal.

A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country.!!

Mr. Panetta needs to resign his position as Defense Secretary or should be fired. Perhaps if we had a President who wasn't an apologist and a Defense Secretary who wasn't scared of the men and women he is suppose to lead, we would not have near the post traumatic stress disorder in our troops. From our Socratic dialogue President to a gutless wonder Defense Secretary.....God help us!!!! 

Why jump to the conclusion Panetta was to blame (or that anybody was to blame, for that matter)?

1. Article didn't say Panetta gave that order - could've been any NCO or officer in charge of even coordination who did that on his own initiative.

2. There were Afghan soldiers in there who were unarmed - bad and insulting diplomatic message to have them there without arms while the Marines are armed.

3. Face it, Marines have been going to shyte lately with poor command and control and lack of discipline. This isn't Chesty Puller's Corps or your father's Marines, well deserving of their reputation for being uber disciplined and super squared away. Marines, particularly the ones in Afghanistan, are the same folk who, in just the past year or so, have been caught urinating on and otherwise desecrating corpses, proudly flying and posing for pictures in front of Nazi SS flags, and murdering sleeping children and setting their corpses on fires. Hell, wasn't a few days ago that it came out a Marine sergeant was telling all and sundry that he wouldn't obey orders from Obama, his effing commander in chief. Obviously this is a corps in disarray and is starting to inch toward being one of those Third World armed mobs that pass for a military, or a militia, rather than those disciplined and highly laudable that have usually brought honor and reflected credit on the US throughout history. And for anybody's who's been in the military, you know that what actually makes it to the news is just a tiny fraction of the stuff that gets covered up at the unit level.

God forbid that we should hurt the feelings of the Afghans.

If there would have been an attack on Mr. Panetta, Lou would have went out the door first. It definitely sent the message that the Marines were not to be trusted. Next, O'Bama will have the Secret Service disarm and the Marine Escorts will no longer be allowed to be armed in O'Bama's presence. Come to think of it, if I was O'BamaI would also be concerned. I'm sure the Marines would apologize to O'Bama & Panetta if an event had occurred.

Holy crap I seriously doubt half of you learned to read properly. The marines were asked to disarm because there were going to be Afghan troops in the audience who were told be be unarmed and the CO decided that it was best to not treat them differently. This makes complete sense considering the atrocities (burning holy scripture and the murder of 16 unarmed Afghan civilians by a marine)... why inflame an already tense situation?

We have lost the hearts and minds of the Afghan people so, Mr. Obama, please begin the withdrawal of our troops and get us out of this quagmire.

The ONLY time an order should be given to disarm is if your surrendering.

I wonder if there is a message here?

It seems it wasn't Panetta who gave the order.

"You've got one of the most important people in the world in the room," Major General Mark Gurganus told reporters at Camp Leatherneck, dismissing concerns related to the shooting. "This is not a big deal."

He said he had given the order because the two dozen Afghan soldiers also there were unarmed and he did not want to treat them differently.

Why are people missing the key line here? "He said he had given the order because the two dozen Afghan soldiers also there were unarmed and he did not want to treat them differently." This is very COMMON in combat zones (and the decision wasn't Panetta's, but the Commander's).

Or are people not actually READING the article?

While an MP in the Army, I was frequently unarmed when the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Congressmen and more came to visit downrange. It's not a slight toward me and my abilities/loyalties... but an intelligent decision to not single out the local security forces also often present at these events. That's just good diplomacy... and I'm sure every Marine there understood that.

This is a NON-story except we need to keep the focus on sensationalism instead of journalism...

@Gabby - Wow you must be the smartest person on the board. PTSD is a result of the President and DefSec and not the daily death and destruction they must witness. Remember it was Bush who started both wars, and maybe if he didn't f*ck up everything he touched Obama wouldn't have to apologize. I'm sorry but everyday we hear about one of these guys going off the reservation, and although I have the highest respect for our military, after 4-5 deployments a lot of these guys are crazier than a @!$%# house rat!If someone is capable of killing children in cold-blood they are more than capable of killing a grown man, no matter who he is or what position he holds.

I guess this administration questions who it's friends are. Rumsfield never worried about speaking before our armed soldiers.

The Washington warmongers stopped trusting US soldiers long time ago. While in Afghanistan or Iraq, ALL of them have security details consisting only of grossly overpaid private MERCENARIES.

paranoia will destroy ah !!..Chickens/ Cowards Rule !!......

@Jpeyton

do you seriously BELIEVE that was the reason?? i don't. i think that was just an easy explanation but not necessarily the truth.

do the soldiers disarm when Obama shows up or when Bush did? i didn't think they did but I could be mistaken. i agree with most of these comments that i wouldn't go to the latrine without my gun in hand, one in my bra, one in my shiny boots and maybe one in the butt cheeks (you all saw Bridesmaids, she said it was possible!) ; )

this sent the wrong message and too soon after the most recent soldier ~snap~ that occurred.

It is a shame that nobody posting here bothered to actually read the story. The marines were tasked with leaving their weapons because the Afghan soldiers were disarmed and Panetta did not want them treated any different.

So the morons posting here want to treat the 'allied' Afghan soldiers treated differently? Why not just come out and say that we don't trust any of them? If that is the case - why not just throw them off the base and start the process of identifying and training new Afghan security again?

The morons do not bother thinking about the end results of their posts. All it takes is one Afghan soldier as a Taliban (and willing to sacrifice themselves) to kill the SecDef. But you boneheads are opposed to COMMON SENSE precautions? If Obama was a Republican - you would be talking about how good an idea it was...

They were told to put their guns down because they are letting these soldiers go out their and die....NOT for America's safety, but because of their politics and political games. They dont care about the soldiers and the soldiers are realizing this. So,....Panetta probably @!$%# in his pants, and was scared that he may be the next war monger to be executed.....fukc em....let him get taken out....he deserves it! (in my opinion)

Thanks CigarGuy.

Finally a reasonable post.

notliborcon

The marines were asked to disarm because there were going to be Afghan troops in the audience who were told be be unarmed and the CO decided that it was best to not treat them differently. This makes complete sense considering the atrocities (burning holy scripture and the murder of 16 unarmed Afghan civilians by a marine)... why inflame an already tense situation?

We have lost the hearts and minds of the Afghan people so, Mr. Obama, please begin the withdrawal of our troops and get us out of this quagmire.

By the way you speak looks to me you are anti-American and those are not your troops, not the ones that die defending our country. I make sense to me to avoid more killings of Americans troops, in hands of fanatic Afghans troops in revenge for the burning of the koran.

@1.38 - I provided security for senior officials on visits to bases - I was always armed. Were you in the Army? I met Army soldiers who were surprised I was armed, they did the same duty on their post, with an empty rifle, that I did on the air base with a loaded rifle, round chambered. I was surprised at their inability to defend their resources. I also pulled sniper duty, overlooking the motorcade route, when the Secretary of State came to visit when I was stationed in Korea. Again, locked and loaded. Always armed, always alert.

SAC trained killer - Peace was our profession. War was just a hobby.

Mary P: "God forbid that we should hurt the feelings of the Afghans."

THANK YOU! About time God forbade it!

@GuyLittle

You hit that nail on the head!! Politicians are so willing to lay down our lives for their political agendas.

If you don't like laying your lives down for the US government, then why did you join the military? The contracts you sign to defend the constitution, the government, and the people is pretty straight forward. If you signed on because you were trying to be some soldier of fortune, then you're just a moron.

Tigor: The M4 is about 1/3 the size of the M14 that I carried in the service. It is about 1/4 the size of an M1 Garand. I am looking at all three as I type. You are paying lip service to the Politcally Correct Liberal Media.

This was being politically correct for Karzi - period. One of these days, we will have a company of soldiers disarmed in Afghanistan and there will be a mass killing of our best and bravest by our "friends" the Afghan soldiers. Was the Secretary's body guard unarmed. I bet not!!! He just didn't trust his own men, especially after he said the Soldier that killed those Civilians will be executed. (That soldier needs mental help, not bullets from a firing squad.)

Even in Vietnam the soldiers kept one eye on the SVA and the Montagnards who were fighting with us. One never knows what or who is in those groups.

This action was one of complete stupidity on the part of the Secretary or General who ordered it and if our troops have to be politically correct in Afghanistan, then we will have more deaths on our hands.

Let's play by the enemies rules and not tie the hands of our soldiers anymore. We can not use Soldiers to police another country. It hasn't worked since Korea. It is time to wipe out the enemy in an actual war or come back home.

Despite what everyone thinks, the order came from General Allen. I got the word from my nephew by email over there who explained that Afghans soldiers are not allowed carry arms when meeting with leaders, elders and statesmen. Since they're all walking on eggshells it was prudent to honor their tradition and level the playing field and not show they're beneath the Marines. It's more diplomatic, like addressing the queen as, Your Majesty instead Yo Liz. He also alluded that the Hole in the Wall Gang would be proud since Butch and Sundance always had a small gun under their shirts on in their boots. That being said, there are a large majority of the troops that have been disillusioned because the mission of getting bin-Laden is completed and has been since May. Some joined because they needed a job but for those that had a certain goal of getting the mastermind of 9/11, sticking round to get a base for another war was never in the cards. Saying we're there until 2014 just puts adds another lie to those that have fought in two different countries. It also doesn't help that Obama and Panetta have may disparaging remarks about a fellow member of the brotherhood saying he may face the death penalty when he hasn't been charged, an investigation hasn't been completed and those contradicting eyewitness statements. Many are insulted and feel betrayed by the administration, their chain of command and feel like most are going to be tossed to the wolves just to please the Afghans and so those same people can get another phucking base. With all that going on Panetta, Obama and other visitors might try pushing the BS and give them all the real story instead of appeasing the Afghan government.

"It sends the wrong message" that Marines can't be trusted in the presence of the secretary of defense," one told him.

Way to go general, showing that neither you nor Panetta trusts our own people. I'm perfectly fine with disarming the Afghani's that attended. They literally cannot be trusted. But to do it to our own people? WTF dude, you need to be replaced with someone else because those marines you just did a disservice to will have ZERO respect for you now.

When Quale came and visited us in Desert Storm, they didn't make us put our guns up.

sounds to me like some idiot General felt the need to be PC

It just takes one to do irreparable damage. Panetta was correct.

what the nazi media is not telling u is last week panetta went up in front of congress and says we take our orders through the un and not congress.i believe that 7 in a half minute video is still there on youtube.that just tells u how scared theses cowards are.hes probley afraid a marine or 2 seeing this hearing in congress.and yes another thing that the nazi media isnt telling u is cause of this, there are inpeacement papers going through congress for obama. h.con res 107

The contracts you sign to defend the constitution, the government, and the people is pretty straight forward.

Cygnus, our military men and women signed up to defend the (American) Constitution, the (American) government and the (American) people. It seems their tasked mission has taken a wrong turn.

Interested Observer there is always a disconnect between what is said and what is perceived. What is said is afghan soldiers unarmed but I will bet in country and here what is perceived is the secdef doesn't trust the men he has sent to war. There is a disconnect in this country between what is said in Washington and what it means in Kentucky. And that is the democrats biggest problem they don't understand that. Bob Olsen I agree they talk as if he has no rights while the Army major who shot up Ft Hood and killed civilians in Tx hasn't even gone to trial yet and that was almost 2 years ago. I heard Obama and to me it sounds as if they intend to railroad this guy. He has actually spent more time in a war zone than my uncle who was drafted before Pearl Harbor and spent V-J day on Okinawa. Believe me he was a good guy but I wouldn't say he was the same guy who left Milwaukee in 1940 nor was his younger brother 10 years after the war walking up behind him without making noise wasn't smart.

I support our troops. That's why I want them home now. The Secretary is afraid of his own troops -- that should tell him something.

Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald were Marines. This was nothing more than not wanting the non US personel not to bring weapons in so no one was allowed to. Nothing more.

I read the article and then I read the posts!

Why did it take 38 posts before someone verified an "A" for reading comprehension?

Good job Cigar Man!

The no unarmed Marines in a combat zone stems from a WW2 incident.. The Marines were ordered to turn in all their ammo on what was thought to be a secured island the night before they shipped out.. But there were some 200 to 300 enemy forces hiding in caves who launched a night time sneak attack that killed many Marines and pilots.. Lesson learned was that 1 moment of negligent relaxed behavior in a combat zone can turn deadly in an instant..

Sawyer-2103826

I support our troops. That's why I want them home now. The Secretary is afraid of his own troops -- that should tell him something.

It tells we the following: Our troops have seen too much blood shed in the name of defense, while the entire fiasco has been offensive. Walk in any VA in the US and look at the young service members that are missing limbs or those that have that stare that is infinite. It's not President Obama's fault, nor is it Panetta's fault. Bring these warriors home and let's rebuild a crumbling economy and infrastructure. For 11 years the war machine has sold us a bill of goods in the guise of flag draped patriotism, while their children don't serve.

The only way to keep us out of war is to cut the living hell out of the defense/offense budget. Do as we did before WWII--walk softly a carry a big stick. Do so without funding other militaries around the world.

Oskar... thanks for the retarded comment. You have NO idea what you are talking about and do you know how to write a proper sentence? If you had studied history or read Sun Tzu you would realize that without a clear goal and, more importantly, without the support of indigenous peoples one has no hope of winning a war. Sun Tzu said "There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare. " So, according to you, withdrawing our troops from this quagmire puts them in harms way? Your logic is baffling.

Can you say member of a gutless thugocracy with knowledge that they are quilty of so much against our troops and our country that they are afraid of our own soldiers. Former mouthpiece for the Whitehouse in positions he has no qualifications for. Could things be more screwed up. If this administration wasn't so horrific it would be a joke.

As ranking person on site, Panetta owns this. The tensions with the Afgan troops supposedly helping us is at an all time high. There are reasons for this. From the standpoint of the Marines in-country those tensions make it necessary to be locked and loaded at all times. These people are not our friends any more than they loved any of the other countries who have occupied their country since forever. When we keep a sniper (a high stress occupation) in country for as many tours as the soldier who allegedly did the shooting we are asking for an atrocity. Two tours at most should be the hard, fast rule. Insult the Afghan military? Better to insult every one of them than to lose another American life in that pest hole. We need to leave now, today. And we need to level all the installations behind us, otherwise the Taliban will be using them for staging points to destroy what little hold the present, US sponsored government has on their territory.

Seeing as how the majority of us posting ARE NOT in theater, we really don't have that much knowledge of the situation, do we?? I'm not sure what is behind this order, but I already have troubles with Secretary Panetta in many other respects, as I'm sure many Service Members and Veterans do. I do consider it setting a somewhat troubling precedent, since many of the world's elitist leaders would like nothing more than an excuse to disarm ALL of us (and it would make sense to start with the military, since they are among the most proficient with firearms). As far as Afghan soldiers being unarmed, after the events of the past month, they SHOULD BE unarmed near high ranking Coalition officials, so while I buy the official story, it doesn't change my opinion that former Secretary Gates was a far better leader than Panetta has been (and on a different PLANET from Rumsfeld, who was the worst Secretary of Defense, BY FAR, that I served under.

I also consider it especially troubling that Mr. Panetta is pushing for an immediate death penalty trial for the soldier suspected of murdering civilians in Afghanistan, but there has been ALMOST NO ACTION on trying the Jihadist soldier behind the Fort Hood massacre, one Private (Major) Nidal Hassan, two and a half years after that disgraceful event. I think both men need to face justice as quickly as is reasonably possible.

Cygnus_X-1 Comment collapsed by the community

I guess the military doesn't teach reading comprehension skills. Shoot first, ask questions later. Love psychos and their guns. What a country.

an insult to RUSH you must bear the name?

however, you are more than welcom to move out of mom and dads, to some other country that bans guns all together, why dont you and your ilk just go if you feel so threatend? i mean the insatiable crying alone i would think cause you all to form like lemmings, and beat feet. yet you stay... why? you are not happy here. so other than you seek negative attention as usual, or you are too scared of some of these unarmed countries?

as far as disarming our troops, sarge said it, some one got itchy, and that doesnt matter what chain of command it heads up, it comes from the top. Pannettea is a bit yellow.

I don't give a rat's a$$ who gave the order. This is despicable treatment of our soldiers and testimony to thet the fact everyone know Panotti is as schmuc*.

Disabled Voter post 1.63

I read the article and then I read the posts!

Why did it take 38 posts before someone verified an "A" for reading comprehension?

very simple reason,people are waking up and not believing comfrimed liars any more,people are going to the internet and getting the facts str8 from the source and turning of the propoganda tv and garbage sites like this.i like to come on here to see how many are awake and how many repeart the dumbdown garbage.turn your brain back on and ask yourself "why" are they feeding me this horse@!$%#

This is pure bull@!$%#.You DON'T disarm your troops in a combat zone. Regardless of who gave the order,it is wrong. You don't want to offend the afgans????You mean the ones who proved so trustworthy in covering our backs??????(with a bullseye???)...Janet Reno I mean Napolitano has gone on record as saying 3 years ago,that anyone who served in OUR military is a potential domestic terrorist....now Panneta,even if he didn't order disarming in a combat zone,as the highest ranking military man,should not have condoned it....we've been forced to fight every war since Korea,on the 6 o'clock news,and with one hand behind our back....either tell us what the objective is,get the hell out of the way,let us do our job,and you can all read about it in the After-Action-Report.......OR Shut it down now,and bring everybody home.Too many people died for politicians of BOTH party's, who didn't think it needed to have a clear plan.The ROE heavily favor the camel jockeys.....(who by the way don't wear uniforms,and women and children wear bomb vests)......kinda frustrates you when you see some set up a kill zone,and you're told not to shoot anybody until one of you get killed first..........because they're ALL friendly allies..........A very disgusted U.S.Army Disabled Veteran

DelFairchild-1968594:

Tigor: The M4 is about 1/3 the size of the M14 that I carried in the service. It is about 1/4 the size of an M1 Garand. I am looking at all three as I type. You are paying lip service to the Politcally Correct Liberal Media.

If I wanted to play lip service to the liberal media, I would have implored everyone to believe that was the only reason this would have been done. I merely mentioned that it was possibly one other factor taken into consideration while making the decision that had not been explained to the public.

With weapons, when you're talking LENGTH, yes, the M4 and it's predecessors (XM-177, GAU-5, etc.) are much shorter than an M14 or an M1. That's the whole point of a carbine, no? The M16 series rifles are considerably SHORTER, too. Are we in agreement with that? The thing is, the length of a slung rifle doesn't really affect anything. It's the amount of lateral space they take up. The old school infantry rifles, much like hunting rifles, were fairly slender. This started to change with the M14, but by removing the magazine, it would no longer be getting in the way of anything. Early M16's were much taller than previous rifles, from the top of the rear sight bridge to the bottom of the pistol grip. Not unmanageable, but different. Then 30 round magazines were adopted. Not as clunky as those used by the Kalashnikov type rifles, but long enough that they start to become cumbersome in some circumstances. Still easy enough to remove a magazine before going into a crowded area.

The issue today is the accessories mounted to most service weapons. Like I'd mentioned, forward vertical grips, lights, lasers, optical sights, etc. This stuff can be detached and remounted, but it's not like dropping and replacing a magazine! The M4 is short, but with all the usual stuff now clamped on its accessory rails, they weigh almost as much as an M1 or an M14 did. And they're bulky. The height and width of a fully decked out carbine is greater than pretty much any service weapon we've ever issued. And that stuff is built to be tough and mission capable, not necessarily soft to the touch when the soldier or Marine in front of you suddenly backs into you and you get the sharp corner of whatever up near the muzzle slammed against your face. It seems to me that this is a primary reason for abandoning the pronged flash suppressors of yesteryear and also part of why bayonets are not to be sharpened.

I am pretty certain that all the Marines on site were not in the tent listening to the SecDef. I'm sure there were an appropriate number armed and stationed outside of the tent, if for no other reason than to guard the weapons that were left out there. They'd be very valuable on the Afghan black market!

So, what would make you think that if someone, presumably an Afghan, did something in the tent that having 200 armed men would actually result in an effective response? It's about impossible to put even a short shoulder arm into action if you're packed like sardines in a confined area. It's not exactly easy with a pistol, either, when your freedom of movement is extremely limited. The men behind the first row would not be able to return fire without severely endangering their brothers in front of them, and this would be assuming that they could see what was going on and have a visible target to fire back at.

In this circumstance, I'm sure the real experts would concur that the security detail lording over the event would be the only personnel in a genuine position to do much about any threat.

I'm just glad I didn't have to be one standing in that tent.

Ref: The photo caption. Those are NOT "guns." Didn't anybody see 'Platoon?'

I don't care who gave the order or why that was a stupid thing to do, what if the Taliban picked that time to attack, even though its not their style it would have been a disaster. at no time do you disarm your troops in a combat zone that's just plane stupid. I'm sure the perimeters were well protected but that's still no excuse maybe Leon can just stay in Washington if hes going to be that much trouble, I would never put down my weapon in a combat zone, nor would I consider that order lawful or legal. if that became standard the Taliban could make use of that. my response to that is I would not go into the tent because I would not disarm.

notliborconIf

you had studied history or read Sun Tzu you would realize that without a clear goal and, more importantly, without the support of indigenous peoples one has no hope of winning a war......

(burning holy scripture and the murder of 16 unarmed Afghan civilians by a marine)...

You have not idea what are you talking about. Obama has no clear goal about what to do in Afghanistan , he has no goal win any war , he just want to retreat and sooner is better. However ,you are more concern about the Afghans than all the Americans killed by Afghan soldiers.Despicable

Whoever made the decision to disarm these Marines, made the wrong decision. Like others have said Marines keep their weapons with them at all times. To hell with diplomacy! This is a combat zone not an amusement park. Every Marine can recite the rifle prayer and you have to take it to heart, no exceptions, ever. This could have turned out very badly. If an insurgent had managed to get in, then what. This was a ridicules decision. Doubter222 is right. That's why I refer to them as weapons, Always a Marine. Semper Fi Leathernecks, keep up the good work. OOOOORRRRRAAAAAAHHHHHH!

It would seem that the Obama administration doesn't trust the military. Of course, when you listen to Obama, one gets the impression that he finds the need for a military rather distasteful. Panetta's bouncing over there on the heels of the massacre and the soldiers killed by their 'fellow' Afghan soldiers following the Koran burnings. well, seems a bit ill-timed.

Now, these wars are not wars, they are exercises in politics. The military is the pawn in the game which is set to never, ever, be won in Afghanistan. The military is not there for nation building...that is some New Age PC crap. The reason for having a military is defense of the realm and to prevent others from harming the realm: aka: The United States. Nation building is for the Peace Corps or some other civilian organization. Asking soldiers to 'nation build' is like asking exterminators to build ant colonies.

Oskar... once again you show your inanity. I want the soldiers to be pulled out so that they ARE safe. W started and underfunded/understaffed this war from the get go so that he could settle a personal vendetta in Iraq and/or get their oil/siphon ,money to halliburton and other "handlers" of his. Obama continued it . WHY are we there? REALLY, why are we still in Afghanistan? Does anyone know? The safest thing for ALL of the US servicemen would be to come home.

Oskar, my concern is for and ONLY for the US servicemen how are being killed for WHAT?

It does not say that Panetta gave the order.....IT Says that:

"Major General Mark Gurganus told reporters at Camp Leatherneck that he had given the order because the two dozen Afghan soldiers also there were unarmed and he did not want to treat them differently."

I think we will be hearing about the retirement of Major General Mark Gurganus in the next 3 to 6 months. As my DI loved to say....."He just stepped on his d___!"

Just courious Sally......how can you enforce that.....not that I do not agree....but?

Dis-arming because the 12 Afgahn solders were unarmed is BS. After recent comments made by the moron Panetta, they are most likely worried about a Marine taking him out... without a trial.

Actually it is more likely that they wanted them disarmed since Defense Secretary Leon Panetta admitted he no longer represented the USA which makes him a traitor, along with Obama and Gen Dempsey.

If their "authority" comes from UN and NATO, then they have NO authority in the USA, or over the US Military.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s testimony asserting that the United Nations and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the United States military. During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO.

Boldly asserting the authority of international powers over and above the US Constitution, Panetta and Obama are openly declaring that they no longer represent the American people and instead are representatives for a global dictatorship that has usurped the sovereignty of the United States.

Since Obama was the Chair for the UN, he and his administration has routinely cited the authority of the United Nations over the US Constitution, over the country he was elected to represent.

Yup, but hey, it's Obama and he and his administration are above the law, above the constitution and essentially above everything else. He doesn't need a congress or a Supreme Court, he can make his own laws.

The last time a POLITICAL General told the US Marines to dis-arm was in Beirut 1983. If I remember correctly, the Security Guards were told to stand guard with; unloaded weapons, and unloaded magazines. To prevent any POLITICAL accidents...

If I had been there I would have told my troops to go back to the barracks and stand by...

IMO - Disarming in a combat zone is a 'Unlawful order'...

Semper Fi to the US Constitution not a POLITICAL Party or POLITICIAN...

It's plain stupidity to ask the the Marines to disarm. Afghans are cowards and are well known to shoot NATO soldiers from the back. Afghan National army are the first to run when facing firefight with the enemy. Best to withdraw ASAP from afghanistan, the government is corrupt and inept from the president down, let Karzay cover his own butt with his very own soldiersand let see how long he can stay. So fat he has not said anything when 13 civilians was murdered by taliban roadbomb, he didn't order them to be back in their bases. Karzai talks big to NATO and small mind when dealing with his own kind.

I'm sure the perimeters were well protected but that's still no excuse

#1 To me it doesn't matter how well defended the base is, it showed total disrespect and lack of trust by the leadership.

#2 200 disarmed soldiers means squat when the base has 18,000 troops on it (easily Googled). At all times that base not only has sufficient guards, it also has a number of ready reaction teams standing by. All of which would have been armed per whatever normal standing orders were. So please, drop the whole "a disaster if they were attacked" angle of the debate.

The last time a POLITICAL General told the US Marines to dis-arm was in Beirut 1983. If I remember correctly, the Security Guards were told to stand guard with; unloaded weapons, and unloaded magazines.

Weapons did not have magazines inserted and no rounds were in the chamber, however they carried loaded magazines on them. Besides it was also found that the lack of a vehicle barrier was the main problem. The truck drove right thru the barbed wire.

"Weapons did not have magazines inserted and no rounds were in the chamber, however they carried loaded magazines on them. Besides it was also found that the lack of a vehicle barrier was the main problem. The truck drove right thru the barbed wire."

I stand corrected. But the guards did not have time to insert their magazines and fire on the vehicle, PRIOR to it crashing the barrier. Until it crashed the barrier, it was not considered a threat, because a delivery truck was expected. By the time they had armed their personnel weapons, the vehicle had already passed them and was inside the compound. If they had a 50-cal available, it takes a while to load, not like your M-16 or 45, which were normally issued...

The time difference between identifying the threat and pulling the trigger is 'Much Shorter' that. Identifying the threat, removing the magazine from its carrier & inserting it, and then charging the bolt. Just to be able to sight-in and pull the trigger...

I was attached to Mag-29 and was transferred to HMM-263 when they returned to CONUS...

A few months after this a few drunk Red-Necks tried to harass the rear gate of Camp Geiger after the neighborhood bar closed. The guards standing duty were among those that just returned from Beirut. The Drunks vehicle ended-up looking like swiss cheese and they were lucky to have survived. The Guards NJP charges were later dropped...

They were just reopening Hwy 24 when I was driving to MCAS New River @ 0530, early flights that morning. So many of us were able to see the IDIOTS PU truck, prior to it being towed away...

I heard the drunks were up-set because a few Marines had left with their girls... Ha! Ha!

The good-old days,when being PC was IGNORED by many and common-sense ruled the day. Back-then the SNCOs & Officers were judged on RESULTS, not by kissing some POLITICAL A$$...

BTY - There have been numerous SUCCESSFUL attacks on US Personnel INSIDE of supposed secure compounds with thousands of armed NATO & US Forces...

Rules are rules. If this is enough to cause a someone to throw a temper tantrum, they have no business in war.

Rob, the Marines made this decision, or so their story goes, and quite frankly it makes since to me. Penetta is the face of an adimistration that has pushed a Rules of Engagement plan onto Gen. McCrystal first, he rebeled and was replaced, and then Gen. Patreus. Those ROE require our troops to wait to be shot at before they can take any action even if they see armed Taliban. This has cost many lives of our service men and women and leaves those remaining little more than sitting ducks for the Taliban. The recent massacre is at least partially the result of the anger and frustration our troops are undoubtedly feeling as they are used as pawns for an administration that thinks it can appease the Taliban by sacrificing the lives of our troops. The commanders in the field see the frustration every day so I suspect they did the smart thing lest there be an accidental discharge of a weapon while the Secretary was speaking.

You are right, Toasty, so, since you believe this, you must accept that, since Obama is Commander in Chief and the buck stops with him, then he is responsible for this decision. If he says othewise then he doesn't deserve the role of Commander in Chief. Rules are rules. The commanding officer is the one responsible for decisions made. Let's see how he explains this.

Maybe you're not quite familiar with the system of command in the Armed Forces, Steven. I might have just misread your post, but if you'd like I can explain it for you.

Is Obama Commander in Chief or is he not, Toasty? The buck stops with him. Since the President has been so sensitive to the recent incidents in Afghanistan, do you seriously believe, in this age of instant communication, that he was unaware of this decision either before or shortly thereafter? Every boneheaded decision the military made, every unethical act committed from 2001 through 2008 was attributed to Pres. Bush, fairly or unfairly. The rules are the rules. Someone should have known the stir this incident would cause. Now let's see the President address it.

Look, if you want to have a serious discussion about how national security policy decisions are made and enacted, I'd be happy to. But if you're just going to clown around, this discussion is over.

Toasty I would love to hear about your expertise on how national security decisions are being made and enacted

Toasty McGrath

IT IS NOT THE RULE! Soldiers are not supposed to disarm in enemy territory. Only the worst kind of coward would ask that such a thing be done. Guilty concience no doubt about it. I hope they pay you well in the Narwahl room and when you meet your maker one day may you live up to you moniker.

Toasty McGrath

Tell us all the war zones you have been in!! NOT sitting behind a desk, that doesn't count.

Toast, your usual obvious disdain for the military and your weak attempt to justify the current administrations decisions no matter if they are right or wrong. I wonder if you really expect anyone to take you serious?

Toasty McGrath

Maybe you're not quite familiar with the system of command in the Armed Forces, Steven. I might have just misread your post, but if you'd like I can explain it for you

.

Toasty,

Yes I would like to hear about your service to this country as well. What personal experience do you have as a member of one of the branches of the U.S. Armed Forces? Playing Call of Duty doesn't count.

Soggy, I'd love to. By all means, ask away. It's my favorite subject.

SMH, quit trying to change the subject.

PC, give me one "disdainful" thing I've said about the military. Go on. What are you afraid of?

@Toasty well Toasty you have managed to stir my curiosity, where did you obtain all this first hand wisdom? people ask you a question and you just deliver a line of BS, are you going to answer the question or not.

I've taken classes on this. Attended briefings and seminars. Been trained by some of the brightest minds in the country.

And because I read books that don't require crayons, Buck...

"The buck stops with him. Since the President has been so sensitive to the recent incidents in Afghanistan, do you seriously believe, in this age of instant communication, that he was unaware of this decision either before or shortly thereafter?"

In boldly asserting the authority of international powers over and above the legislative branch, Panetta and Obama are openly declared that they no longer represent the American people and instead are representatives for a global dictatorship that has usurped the sovereignty of the United States.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s testimony asserting that the United Nations and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the United States military.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO.

Since Obama was the UN Chair, he and his administration routinely cites the authority of the United Nations over the US Constitution, over the country he was elected to represent.

Can you say "Traitors"?

Traitors. Works for me.

And Toasty is toast.

Tell you what Knine, name one example. Cited from a credible source. I dare you.

Go on, what are you afraid of?

This is just symbolic. Obama has been disarming our military every way come Sunday.

Toasty,

I must have missed your response to my question. What branch of service were/are you in?

Do you legitimately want to know or was that just rhetorical?

I legitamely want to know.

The finest and most professional fighting force the world has ever seen: the United States Marine Corps.

I wouldn't worry too much about Marines - now if it was an Army unit, maybe. It seems like all the lunatic shooters have been USA, so far. Marines may get carried away in combat against those they perceive as the enemy, but it would be extremely unusual for them to turn against their own. It really makes you wonder about the Army's screening methods for recruits and officer selection.

mailman8, are you serious? You cant (or shouldnt) paint a group with the same paint brush. Are there bad soldiers, yes. Are there bad marines, yes. Are there bad airmen, yes. Are ther bad seaman, yes. Singling out the army is disgraceful and BS. It would be like me saying every person with mailman in their name/title is a complete idiot who doesnt think because his head is up their @$$. I wouldnt do that because as fas as I know you are the only one with mailman in their name that fits this category.

The military should march to the White House and make everyone who voted for this bull@!$%# war to go fight it themselves. let them and their families go fight...Let the soldiers go home to their families and lieve their life, rather than die for a false war. Many soldiers will leave behind children....and that is not fair.....These politicians sit back and watch the war like its a football game....and they done give a crap if soldiers die or not....If they want to support the troops....get them home, and end this b.s. war.

"The military should march to the White House and make everyone who voted for this bull@!$%# war"

I bet you didn't think it was BS two months after 9/11

Janine what is paranoid in a suburb of an American city and what is paranoid in a war zone are two different things. What would be paranoid in your instance would be self preservation in theirs.

Yes, it does. Disarming the Afghans after they assassinated two soldier while sitting at their desks over the Quran burning incident is just a matter of good judgment....They have no reason for their little feelings to be hurt. Disarming your protection and subordinates is another matter entirely. Lilly livered bunch of politicians. Wrong message sent to the wrong people. Every soldier in that tent would lay their life on the line for the person speaking...and would have if there had been an attack. If that was the order, did the SS also disarm? Was it an entirely "armless" tent? I doubt it.

Jodeman don't be to hard on mailman. He was maybe a Marine and truth be told we always crack on each other. Just like they don't like to called jugheads, we would called them that and it was on. Never the less in a combat situation no-body better to be with and that's a fact. Still brothers in arms and always will be. They should have never been dis-armed for no reason in country.

They may have not like the message, but, no-one needs to be worried about these soldiers. I know you guys have stated the reasons for your concern, but, the Marines and others really do not need a weapon to kill. Sure it's a little faster but it is not needed.

The reason stated by the press is more BS for the citizens of our country more so than for these Marines. All I can say is Godspeed my Brothers in arms for your safe return. Geronimo.

@Mailman don't go postal on us, I am a former Marine, and I don't believe in cutting down the Army or any other Branch of the armed forces," except in fun". the Army is the largest branch of the combat forces we have and being so they have allot more personnel to deal with its only natural that they would have more problems, I'm impressed that they don't have more then they do. and the troops being recycled in and out time after time is having its toll. atrocities happen in war, and when you have politicians calling the shots, you get a mess like we've been having since Korea, if your going to win you have to eliminate the two worst elements that's Politicians and the Media, with them on your side you don't need a enemy. we could have won Viet Nam in a couple of weeks its the politicians and their politicle correctness that was the losing factor., the same is true in Afghanistan. and the Media should leave the battles on the battlefield not put it in everyones livingroom.

OR respectfully declined....

You can't really tell someone in your chain of command to "go f/k himself." Nor can you "respectfully decline."

Actually you can respectfully decline...

Or, but the guard (outside of the tent) watching the weapons....

There isn't an army in the world that would stack their arms without a guard. You learn that in basic training.

They should have let him talk to a tent without one american service man present.

wonder why people spend time posting such highly intelligent, meaningful tripe as RAS did?

Headhunter, he was more than likely speaking his mind, as anyone will know you really can't do this in the military. If you was to say that, it would more than likely result in n article 15 at the very least. Plenty of extra duty and reduction of rank.

People really don't understand the difference between civil justice and UMCJ. One you have rights and the other you have the right to shut up.

There is a way to tell off a superior if you need to and that is considered proper military etiquette, you simply add to the beginning of the sentance" with all due respects" its the rank / position that you have to show respect to not the man, but I don't recommend it.

I met a couple officers I thought needed fragged, but there was never an opportunity. I don't think I could have done it myself, but one of them was truly despicable. Then, LONG before MSNBC came up with this stupid "Lean Forward" slogan, I had a Ops Supervisor come up with a variation of that - "Lean forward in your foxhole." He was an idiot, and our morale was pretty low. I got in trouble (but well worth it) when I added the line on his poster "so we can stab you in the back." Location was what is now known as JBLM.

I would worry more about our "friends" in the tent than an American Soldier. I bet the Afghan soldiers were being watched very closely by about everyone in the area.

Wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Karzai has Afghan soldiers disarmed before he addresses them also.......probably makes them take off their shoes so they can't be thrown, too.

So jon were you with the 1st SFG? Hey and thxs for your service.

Its not right or left wing, there a war mongers on both sides. We need to vote in someone against any war.

Load up that BONG 420. Get a serious user name and I'll address your concerns.

If Obama really wanted out of this war all he has to do is Load up the C 130's and move out. there is no wining to this war.

LMFAO @ John.. Your the coward.. Address them now. I did, coherently and honestly. What now John.. Speak to me..

I have a serious name, you're just ignorant and a typical right winger d-bag.. The GOP wants permanent bases in the Middle-East to protect that bastard child Israel. Israel is America's downfall. The Defense Secretary did NOT give this order. The order came from the Maj. Gen. on the ground only because the Afghans were also unarmed. Do you not know how to read John or are you from Texass?

Bush couldn't ride a bike because he was just dumb. Bush & Cheney are both chickens. They can't even leave America because they face War Crimes charges for violating the Geneva Convention. Cheney had to cancel a trip to Canada because in his words "it's too risky!" I guess that's that consequences for starting 3 wars without the facts and then leaving the whole stinking pile to the incoming POTUS! Typical GOPers can never finish anything. The GOP bankrupt America and then blame the sitting POTUS for trying to fix the messes.

"I love how the psycho military dudes come out of the woodwork on this one. Why jump to such quick conclusions about the situation? The article was short, and could not explain who and why the marines were asked to disarm. Perhaps they received a tip of a possible assassination attempt on the SOD, and they didnt want to take any chances."

Yes it was short yet everyone seems to have missed this line

"He said he had given the order because the two dozen Afghan soldiers also there were unarmed and he did not want to treat them differently."

scan up to #6.2, 6.6. I am a right-wing GOP conservative Christian. Got to disagree with you, druggie. It is not political mindset that determines when it is time to fight or not. Sadly, too many politicians of all stripes like to use the military too much. It is time to get out of Afghanistan. There is no way now to win hearts and minds, no way to bring any form of democracy to any Muslim nation, and no reason to fight there any more. As much as I did not care for Clinton, he used surgical air strikes for the most part, to take out known threats, and did not get enmeshed in wars generally (although I think Mogadishu was on his watch, if I remember. I may be wrong.) Personally, I also want the troops out safely because my daughter has her man over there right now, and I don't want her to lose him. I did my time, and know what it is like (1973 - 1992), but this one can't be salvaged, and I think that privately, most of the politicos know it, but they are trying to save face. This time it can't be done.

420.......please pass that joint you're smoking......

Police Actions are not winnable and never will be. Just a waste of time, effort, materials and soldiers since Korea.

420 it is the republicans who are calling this war an unconstitutional act. Second maybe Panetta was afraid the marines wives and families told them about Panettas statement about Iran and Syria where he believes we can go to war there without congressional approval too. Isn't 10 freaking years enough already. 420 I'm sure your town has a recruiting office you can go and relieve one of these men so they can go home.

@ lonereb, I already served, honorably thank you. The Republincan'ts now calling this war illegal? News to me. Since when? They started this war, remember?

@ Jon, so your disagreeing with me on what? The fact that the GOP wants more wars? Iran ring a bell? On Syria, McCain said he wants bombing missions, nice to be a Senator when you don't have to make any life or death decisions.. Santorum, Romney and Newton all want to invade, they said it, not me.

I want the troops home. Time to take care of THIS nation. Screw the world. Rebuild America first and spend the trillions here, not on nations that never wanted OUR version of Democracy. The GOP want war, war and war. They only see that as the way to make America better. Wrong

Afghan soldiers have demonstrated repeatedly that it is wise to treat them with a high index of suspicion. If it hurts their little feelers then they should not have turned and killed our soldiers. Too bad. What that soldier did to those innocent Afghans is another matter. He should be hanged. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior and I will not buy the battle weary defense. Some things are just wrong...and this was one of them. Panetta disarmed the very people charged to protect him. That is disrespectful and cowardly.

Hey 420, stick your head back in the sand until prom. Don't they have parental controls on your computer. Do something healthy like go hug a tree

420 "Screw the world." yeah....that really sounds intelligent? Don'y you have a pop quiz to study for?

Are you simply pasting in the Occupy talking points? So much anti-semite clap trap. Clean out the bong resin once in a while. Name calling always helps advance the cause? Typical non-working lefty tripe. When all else fails, including your fearful leaders policies, both forengn and domestic, simply throw flames.

Most americans know we've been in the Afghan conflict wayyyyy to long, me included.

If I were the Sec/def, I would take my chances with being shot rather than display this incredible degree of mistrust in my own men. But of course, I am used to being shot at, just not by my own people.

Agreed. The Afgan soldiers should have been excluded from the meeting. This is turning into one major screwed up war situation. These people have no desire to protect themselves from the Taliban, so let'd leave them alone and get the heck out of there. These wars are killing us. We can't win these wars where the people have nothing to lose in dying for some stupid ideals. We do however. These Taliban can live under rocks and be totally happy and stay holed up forever. We should have learned this in Vietnam, but didn't. The whole thing stinks rotten and we need to get our poeple out of there. We've done enough. There should be a last ditch effort to eradicate top leadership, set up survaillance and if terrorist support activity resumes, hit them remotely as needed with drones, missiles, etc. Footwork is accomplishing nothing.

Politically correct thinking again trying to destroy our military.

And how does this "destroy" anything, Mike? Rules are rules.

Better treatment than that from the people who expect you to die on their orders. The SECDEF needs to resign if he can't trust the men he sends into battle.

Toasty says: "how does this destroy anything? rules are rules" there is a good point in there Toasty...we expect our troops to carry out orders and to follow the rules...however when the rules, as in rules of engagement, are designed to pacify the very people we are at war with at the expense of the welfare of our troops then it destroys morale and creates anger, frustration and dissention...when a rule is created soley because the senior civilian adminstrator fears he will be shot by his own forces, well, that rule sends a pretty clear message to the troops. The message the secretary is sending is: "we are not on the same team, we dont share the same goals, and I dont trust you"..that my friend is a destructive message for the Sec. of Def and the President for whom he serves to be sending to our troops in the field.

Toasted, rules are rules? You sound so childish with that meaningless statement. Just saying. Did you miss the point that the reason he asked for no weapons in the meeting was because he did not want to offend the unarmed afghans? This is clear PC at it's worse, nothing to do with any "rules". Why does Obama not hear us, telling him to bring our troops home? He apologizes to a female thirty year old law student for a lame remark by Rush Limbaugh, yet sits on his hands concerning pulling our troops out of Afghanistan. Pure election year bs.

Tell you what, PC. You volunteer to risk your life in defense of your country, and then you can lecture me about military rules and regulations.

Going? It's moving through the pipes now. But it will get worse, just wait a bit.

Demtrious, please read the article.

"'You've got one of the most important people in the world in the room," Major General Mark Gurganus told reporters at Camp Leatherneck, dismissing concerns related to the shooting. "This is not a big deal.'

He said he had given the order because the two dozen Afghan soldiers also there were unarmed and he did not want to treat them differently."

It wasn't Panetta. Once you read the article, you can come back and comment on it.

Are you an American, Demetrious? If so, I'm asking you. Your arrogance is showing.

Demetrious,you haven't a clue.(SP) Do 3 tours I did.

Capt. Joseph Mc )09 ;;;#$# )302 USMC

Since it was politically incorrect for the Afghan soldiers to feel differently why have them there at all ? In fact, why are we fighting a PC war? Imagine what the great Generals and warriors of history would think.they would be laughing themselves silly. No wonder the US hasn't won a war since WWII.

Mary P,

We did pretty well on the battlefield in Desert Storm. Of course we had generals that let us kill the enemy like it was free, and no reporters allowed on the battlefield.

Mary Margaret darlin', we Marines called Desert Storm ,Desert Shower it was such a cakewalk. I think the Iraquies surrendered to more reporters than troops.Behave on Saturday.

The order came from one of those men and women. Hold your comments until you can say something useful.

Baja you like many cannot see the disconnect between what was said and what is perceived. What is said DOJ Texas cannot have a voter ID law almost identical to Indianas voter ID law. What is perceived the DOJ wants to control the people of Texas and discriminate against them. What is said is unimportant what is perceived correctly or not is real to the people affected. It will affect every decision those people make for a generation no matter who is in office. Washington wants to take away our states rights is what will be the belief of the people for at least 20 years.Untill you start dealing with the disconnects you will not be able to understand the feelings of the people involved because it is the beliefs they act upon not what you say.

Marines don't have feelings, sir, by their own repeated assertion.

Cynic, Marines not soldiers get with the program.

You know, I never thought I'd see the day where Americans brag about high treason. This tea party push to far-right extremism is getting ugly, and people have been hurt and killed because of it.

Like maybe since he is appointed his boss Obama. Birds of a feather.

UDunno is correct...Nobody should "take out" anybody. Your words are treasonous and just wrong. I don't agree with disarming our own troops, but to suggest that the SOD be taken out is stupid and wrong. STFU if you don't have something of value to offer.

UDunno, Your comment is pathetic, while I agree the move was PC at it's worse, people like you are part of the problem.

Toasty, have a Guiness on me ST. Paddy's day.

Panetta travels with his own security detail.

If a "would-be assassin" brings a weapon to the meeting, Panetta's security detail will deal with the situation.

The last thing that is needed is 200 Marines locking and loading and firing in the meeting.

And I have yet to meet a US Marine that is defenseless without a firearm.

In short, as part of the relationship building with Afghan forces the General decided it was best to treat the Afghans and the Marines the same. The Marine General did not ask your opinion.

Really Sharkey thats the way you think this thing went down? You figure a Marine General waits for his troops to file into a tent where they have set things up for a visit from the Secretary of Defense...then after everyone is seated and the SOD is preparing to enter the tent, at that moment the good Generally says: "Weeellll Gooolllyyyy Sgt Carter these boys got real live shootin guns"...then General Pile desides to disarm his men and on the spot...WOW if you believe that I would love to show you some ocean-front property just outside of Tucson. This was clearly a decision the SOD and undoubtedly cleared by POTUS.

No, the way you describe it is clearly not the way it came down.

The Marines attending were in formation and ordered to ground their weapons. They then filed into the tent.

The SOD has nothing to do with the decision, it was made by the General prior to the arrival of the SOD, and the General's orders were passed down the chain of command for implimentation.

Give it a break son, the SOD/POTUS does not control local conditions on the ground, he just shows up and plays his part in the dog and pony show.

did you even read the article? It says, quoting a marine who was there "the Marines were waiting to hear Panetta's speech when they were abruptly told by their commander to get up, leave their weapons, including M16 and M-4 automatic rifles and 9 mm pistols, outside and return unarmed."

Its been awhile for me Sharkey but in your experience are do Marine usually "get up" when they are already in formation?

Did General Pile really make this decision "prior to the arrival of the SOD" as you allege but not communicate it to the actual marines until they were seated at the speech.

You state that the SOD does not contril local conditions and I think you are usually right...do you think maybe, just maybe, that is why the headlines starts out with "in a highly unusual move".

I tell ya, sometimes I think Barnum was a true prophet.

Marines do not haphazardly leave their weapons laying around outside a tent, at least I hope not.

They should have been assembled into formation by the junior officers and ordered to ground their weapons, and then file back into the tent.

That is SOP.

As to "highly unusual move", plenty of posters have already stated that it is SOP for military personnel in combat zones to be disarmed prior to going into these types of meetings. That is also my experience with high ranking government officials. Note: Jane Fonda is not a high ranking government official, Leon Panetta is a Cabinet Member.

I have no idea when the order from the General was communicated to the junior officers, it may have been just prior to the meeting, or it may have been earlier in the day. Generals issue orders through staffs, and then the order goes down the chain of command. No place in the article does it say that the General was present when the order was issued.

It does say that the Marines were awaiting the arrival of Panetta, and were given the order by their commander. Protocol would place the General with Panetta, that meaning the General would be part of the entourage greeting Panetta when he arrived at the base.

Thus, the General would not be at two places at once, being with Panetta, and awaiting Panetta in the tent. This leads me to believe that either the commander that issued the order to the 200 Marines had just received the order, or that he suddenly realized that he had forgotten to impliment an order he had received previously. Either is possible.

In any case, there is no great conspiracy theory here that Panetta was involved in the decision, as the General has stated that it was his decision and provided his reasons.

Yea, that's why the military has gotten a pay raise (each and every year) since Obama has become President. Nice try..

The men and women in the military automatically get a raise every two years for seniority reasons. Most of the time they get some raise each year, even during war years. Make sure you know your facts before you comment.

That's also why the VA has increased since Obama took office(if you remember Bush made cuts to the VA). Besides this story has NOTHING to do with Obama, go reread and stop putting your limbaugh/Beck/Fox twist on every story.

So decimating our military by as many as 130,000 troop cuts is a positive? And the VA improvements were already in the works when Bush was still in office. Recall Obama and Hillary mistreating General Patreaus on capital hill?

Threatening to withold soldiers pay if his temporary budget extension wasn't granted (instead of cuts to his no-taxpaying, welfare recipient base)?

Obama's rules of engagement in Afghanistan are tying our soldiers hands.

Now this indignity.

Our military can't take anymore of this clowns largesse. We can't, either.

When the budget debate was occurring, Obama explicitly stated the first people to be paid would be the military. And "Obama's Rules of Engagement" are the PROPER rules of engagement that have been used during our history of war for at least a hundred years. And thirdly, if you had actually bothered to read the article, it states that it wasn't Obama asking them to disarm (He's not mentioned in the article PERIOD), it was Major General Gurganos. This "clown" got Osama bin Laden. This "clown" had the balls to do what Bush didn't (Go into Pakistan to get the bastard). This "clown" did the smart thing in Libya and decided to use air power rather than invade the friggin country. The facts are against you. But that doesn't really matter, does it? Because unless you actually READ them (Which you clearly haven't done, especially in pertaining to this article) they're easy to ignore.

Panetta was just following Obama lead, kissing behind, apologizing to the enemy & insulting his own citizens. The Taliban influence is still in power if he is physically present or not. Bin ladin was taken out last year & supposedlly they removed the taliban from power, so why are still there? Obviously the people still support & follow the Taliban, let them have them back. As for the big corporations with investment in the ME use your money to protect your finanial assets. Time to bring our troops home, we can always use them on our own borders.

marlen you need to check your facts, there is a hold on pay raises this year, so the entitlement(read dummycrat voters)class can get their full meal at the taxpayer trough. We received yearly pay raises during the Bush administration, if my memory serves me.

Bin Laden wasn't Taliban, DK...

toasty, DK didn't say Bin Laden was Taliban.

factofthematter- incorrect. no air or artillery support if within 500yds of an building is NOT an old roe. in every war we bombed wherever we needed to. no obama says fight your way out. it is getting people killed very quickly cause the taliban know that bammy is not allowing the military to call in air support so the hole up in a cluster of building w civilians as hostages knowing obama's roe's won't allow close air support.

No, FD, he merely was surprised that the Taliban was still around after killing him. So basically... The same thing.

Factof the matter... Either you have a bad memory or don't think your dishonesty can be shown. http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/03/military-pay-government-shutdown-dfas-032811w/ and: http://www.citizens4freedom.com/Articles/tabid/1387/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4479/Military-Pay-Cut.aspx

Next time, do your homework.

Toasted McGrath, You just looking for ways to irritate people today I see. You are doing really well, no one said Bin Laden was Taliban. Try actually reading the posts before making your silly comments.

@DK: remember the photo of George W Bush holding hands with the Saudi royalty?

Just call us mercs for short.

NICE post !!

Good post. Strange the Marines are the only armed men in the Pentagon and they guard Panetta there.

Uh, General John? If there was an attack, the marines would simply exit the tent and pick up their rifles.

I remember LBJ coming to Camp Pendleton Nov. 10th 1967. Had to vacate all of the barracks surrounding the mainside parade field. They nailed the windows shut and everyone was told that if a face was seen in any of the windows they would be shot by all of the snipers they had positioned. I think Leons' handlers are afraid for the poor boy. Just shows how civilians really feel about the troops. OORAH, SEMPER FI.

Uh, Toasty, would they really have the time? DOH!

Perhaps you aren't familiar with an "armory." If you think a pile of rifles is too hard to pick up weapons from, you should see how fast these men and women can get them out of a locked system in times of an attack.

Really, it's sad to see so many people doubt the combat capabilities about an armed service they themselves have never experienced in any remote way.

Fear the government that fears your guns. There is so much animosity now between the citizens and the government that both sides now eye each other suspiciously. This is what happens when the government entangles itself into the daily lives of its people and it becomes a self serving system only interested in its own self preservation instead of the simple ideas on which it was founded. The government has become such a major portion of our everyday lives that many citizens no longer know how to stand on their own and take care of themselves through rough times. They depend on the government to make all the decisions for them through social programs and relief.

Sorry Toasty, they aren't going to pick up weapons faster than someone who has already drawn a bead on them can fire. Disarming Marines in a combat zone is just plain stupid and is a statement from the leader that says "I don't trust you not to shoot me".

Toasty expects the enemy to play by the "rules" all the Marines would have to do is call time-out and the enemy would have to lay down their weapons until the Marines got their weapons and called ready, then fighting would resume. LOL! Toasty is toasted today.

Again Mike, it's sad to see someone have such a negative view of the combat capabilities of the United States Marine Corps.

Marines and all soldiers under command whether in a combat zone or not give up their weapons when they are ordered to do so by their superiors or they get brought up on charges. Since they were ordered to do so, they complied. Panetta didn't give the order and it may or may not have had to do with security for him. The latter is speculation and not the reason stated, which had to do with Afghan soldiers being disarmed. Seems to be more about respect than disrespect. The article clearly says,

Major General Mark Gurganus told reporters at Camp Leatherneck that he had given the order because the two dozen Afghan soldiers also there were unarmed and he did not want to treat them differently