Watching the Outrage Unfold
Let me interput my weeding of the herb garden for 15 minutes to look at this “Ubfvckingbelievable” story of troops in Afghanistan being forced to patrol without ammunition in their weapons.
It appears the story begins a few days ago at US Reports with rumors from Afghanistan that say some patrols are on ‘amber’ status, a status that means patrols may not have a round chambered in thier weapons. Read the comments!
Black Five, a site dedicated to veterans and current military affairs, has a follow up a few hours later that says essentially identify the source or STFU.
There have been a number of reports, including on the top war correspondent of this generation’s FB page, that our troops are patrolling in some parts of A-Stan with no round in the chamber of their weapons. I’m calling BS and have sent a message to ask if this is approved policy anywhere in theater. If anyone has specific info, not I heard from this guy whose sister knows a dude in the 82nd, but actual unit info about this. Then ping me and I will check it out.
There is no earthly reason to do this. It doesn’t make the locals any safer. It’s not like we have had an epidemic of accidental discharges killing civilians. If it has happened trust me, we will be busting heads and taking no prisoners. If not then it’s probably time for a hot, steaming cup of STFU.
Again, read the comments of veterans.
Monday morning and the Idiotocracy gets the story, and the fin starts!!111!!
“Obama Regime orders U.S. troops in Afghanistan to carry WEAPONS with NO BULLETS!”
“Obama Orders Troops in Afghan- patrol with unloaded weapons”
“US Troops Forced to Carry Unloaded Weapons”
Back to our friend at Black Five
There has been a lot of talk about weapons carry status for our troops in Afghanistan and whether they are being told to carry in amber status i.e. no round in the chamber. I asked ISAF HQ and got the following response.
Jim,
Headquarters ISAF, the ISAF Joint Command and the Regional Commands have not issued guidance to units instructing them to conduct patrols without rounds chambered. Force protection levels are dictated by the local threats and determined by commanders at the lowest possible tactical level, so without knowing the specific unit from which this report came I can’t verify with absolute certainty that verbal or written guidance has not been issued locally. But the intent to subordinate commanders should be clear. At no time do we remove our troops’ inherent rights of self-defense, and we are confident that their training and discipline allows them to use force discriminately within the rules of engagement. We’d welcome information from anyone who has a problem with the way guidance is being implemented that they haven’t been able to address with their immediate chain of command.
So it is not policy for the theater and they are clear about the fact that our troops always have the ability to defend themselves. If it is happening it is being done at a tactical command level. I have not heard of any specific units that have done this. I think there would be a big difference between carrying in amber status while riding in up-armored vehicles v. carrying amber while on a foot patrol. I am OK with the first and vehemently opposed to the second. If anyone has word about something like that happening email me and I will pass it on to these folks. Next slide.:
Next Outrage please!!