Originally published September 14 2015
In Obama's upside-down world, disarmed U.S. military personnel depend on armed CITIZENS to protect them
by J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) Academics and experts who study the relationship between the U.S. military and the civilian population have said that a gap between American society and military culture has widened in recent decades.
Much of that, they say, is due to the fact that fewer and fewer members of the financial, academic, and ruling elite have any experience with military service.
The could certainly help explain why the Obama administration made a decision following the jihadi-inspired attack on two military recruiting stations near Chattanooga, Tenn., recently not to permit active duty members of the military to be armed, either on base or while serving in public – even though the military has routinely been targeted during his administration. Officially the decision came from the Pentagon but, of course, the military leadership is answerable to the Commander-in-Chief.
And it could also help explain what happened next: Former military members who are now civilians showing up armed to protect and defend the unarmed military personnel at recruiting stations around the country.
"Hero Guard"As reported by the UK's Daily Mail, former military members armed with semi-automatic rifles and handguns began showing up at recruiting stations in July following the killing of four Marines and one Navy sailor on July 17. Part of a group calling itself the "Hero Guard," the volunteers stationed themselves outside recruiting centers in Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Gen. Mark Milley, tapped to be the next Army chief of staff, has said he believes active duty recruiting stations should be armed under "certain conditions" and provided the legal questions are appropriately answered. Thus far, a few state governors have authorized their National Guard forces to be armed in certain conditions.
Terry Jackson, a 15-year Army vet and member of the Hero Guard, told the Star-Telegram in Fort Worth, Texas, he believed it was his duty to stand up for service members when they were not being permitted to defend themselves.
Jackson told the paper that his protest was tied to the administration's refusal to permit recruiters to be armed or recruiting centers to be protected with armed military members, making such centers "gun-free zones." The same is true on military bases, where only security guards or military police are permitted to be armed.
"It was unacceptable for our soldiers, sailors, our men and women of the military to go over and serve and go into combat, and then to come back here to the homeland and be gunned down on their home duty stations," he told the Star-Telegram.
"They were going to work for their families and not coming home."
Since the shootings, the Daily Mail added, Marines have been ordered not to wear their uniforms at recruiting centers - an order that did not sit well with the Corps or other current and former military members. Following a firestorm of protest, the order was eventually rescinded.
In the age of Obama, civilians step up to defend the defendersTwo days after the killings, the governors of Texas, Florida and Indiana ordered their National Guard forces at military offices and other facilities armed, along with installation of bulletproof glass and better video surveillance. The next day, governors in Wisconsin, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Arkansas ordered Guard troops armed and brought up reinforcements.
At his Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Milley answered questions about arming recruiters or putting armed military guards in centers.
"I think under certain conditions on both military installations and ... recruiting stations ... we should seriously consider it," he said. "In some cases, I think, it's appropriate."
Some have suggested that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits arming U.S. military members who are serving in the general public. But that may be a flawed interpretation of the law. The act was a Reconstruction Era statute following the Civil War that banned use of the military in a law enforcement capacity, but it doesn't specifically ban military members from being armed for other purposes, such as self-defense.
Meantime, in the age of Obama and a lack of military experience within the administration and Congress, leave it to vets and ordinary citizens to step up and defend the military that is more than capable of defending itself.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml