Marines told not to wear uniforms

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Drail

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
6,419
Anybody else seen this - according to ABC News and the Marine Corps Times - Marine Recruiting Command has instructed recruiters to not wear their uniforms to or from or when working in the recruiting depot. I haven't figured out if this is a standing order or an advisement. When we returned to CONUS from Southeast Asia in 1973 we were "strongly advised" (but not "ordered") while processing at Travis AFB to not wear our uniforms off base because of the hundreds of Vietnam protesters massed at the gates waiting to hurl stuff at us. We were speechless. They weren't kidding though - the scene at the gate was unbelievable. Several branches are now talking about closing all of their "strip mall" recruiting locations and relocating them onto a military base. A U.S. Army General has also stated that arming soldiers is not an acceptable solution to the problem because of the high risk of NDs because the soldiers have not had enough training with sidearms. I can't even recognize my country any more.
 
Last edited:
'Tis a sad, sad, sad day in our country if leadership believes that a service-member cannot safely wear his/her uniform in public.

I was on active duty for more than twenty years, and there wasn't ever a day that I didn't feel proud as hell to put on my uniform to go to work .... and proud as hell -- and most safe -- when wearing the uniform out in town. (Although, I can now admit that once this current era of terrorism began, I may have occasionally contravened directives and kept a weapon in my car, vehicle inspections at the gates be damned.)

As a retiree who went in harm's way on occasion while serving, I strongly resent having to dis-arm just to go on base for commissary or exchange visits, which is why, sadly I don't patronize the local bases even when I can realize substantial savings when it comes to shopping.

"Risk of NDs?" Figures an Army general would say that; I'd hope a Marine general would be embarrassed to make a statement such as thaty.
 
Drail said:
Anybody else seen this - according to ABC News and the Marine Corps Times - Marine Recruit Depot has instructed recruiters to not wear their uniforms to or from or when working in the recruiting depot. I haven't figured out if this is a standing order or an advisement. When we returned to CONUS from Southeast Asia in 1973 we were "strongly advised" (but not "ordered") while processing at Travis AFB to not wear our uniforms off base because of the hundreds of Vietnam protesters massed at the gates waiting to hurl stuff at us. We were speechless. They weren't kidding though - the scene at the gate was unbelievable. Several branches are now talking about closing all of their "strip mall" recruiting locations and relocating them onto a military base. A U.S. Army General has also stated that arming soldiers is not an acceptable solution to the problem because of the high risk of NDs because the soldiers have not had enough training with sidearms. I can't even recognize my country any more.
Click to expand...
what a joke
 
In my experience, if a a full-bird and above can remotely get away with thinking up with the easiest and least logical excuse you can imagine, they will.

Who's going to challenge them? :scrutiny:

Every day when I pull up to the gate, I feel a pang of resentment that I have to disarm myself, because the military has less trust in me than the state government... which is a shame considering I am an active duty member. Like others, I don't shop at the commissary or PX/BX unless it's during work hours. I get off the base pretty much as soon as I can, because on base, I feel as if I have no freedom.

JMHO.

YMMV.
 
Back in 1969 at Fort Ord California we were ordered not to wear our uniforms off base. Times were different then.
 
From Marine Corps Times;

"The military services have taken swift action to increase security after Thursday's shootings in Tennessee, even closing some facilities and telling Marine recruiters not to wear uniforms in public. One of the steps Carter approved was Marine Corps Recruiting Command's decision to have recruiters not wear their military uniforms for now, a defense official said. The recruiting command also closed down all offices within 40 miles of the facilities in Chattanooga and increased the force protection condition level from "Bravo" to "Charlie."

"Charlie" is the third highest security level. It indicates an incident has occurred or officials have evidence that terrorists are planning an attack. Security measures can include thorough vehicle inspections and requiring an escort to get on base, according to a pamphlet from Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey.

U.S. Army Recruiting Command has also elevated its force protection condition level to "Charlie" in coordination with the Marine Corps, the Defense official said. Navy Recruiting Command Southeast has doubled the number of hours it conducted Random Access measures and has increased efforts to work with local law enforcement to increase police patrol presence."

This seems like a reasonable precaution at least for the moment. Clearly the military has a different view of the attacks on military facilities in the U.S. than the Obama Administration which continues to avoid using the word "terrorism."

Like it or not terrorism has arrived on our soil. The only real question is how many terrorist "sleepers" are already in the country.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/sto...d-not--wear-uniforms-offices-closed/30353587/
 
After disarming the troops because "they cannot be trusted with a loaded gun" the very least that these clowns could do is station an armed MP (or two) with a loaded rifle at the door to the recruit depot. Is THAT too much to ask?:confused:
 
Tis a sad, sad, sad day in our country if leadership believes that a service-member cannot safely wear his/her uniform in public.
Click to expand...

We were discouraged from traveling in uniform in the early 1970s. Not from a terrorist threat, but because it could get you harassed and spit on by anti-war people.
 
I never worried about being harassed by anti-war morons. Nor did I ever have to worry about being targeted with a firearm for wearing uniform. Of course, when I returned from my first OIF deployment, the community held a parade for our unit ...

In my country, military folks should not have to concern themselves with either being shot at or spit on for wearing the uniform.
 
I never worried about it either, but we were discouraged from doing it, probably because the command was worried about a fight breaking out in the airport.
 
There are numerous issues involved in arming military personnel, not the least of which is that there are not enough weapons in inventory.

Training, competence, uniform, duty assignments, When/Where/How are all factors.

It's not a simple matter.
Denis
 
Well it apparently is for the jihadists. This situation is inexcusable.:fire: We don't have enough weapons to arm our military? Let's see - how many billions did we give the military in the last fiscal year? The U.S. spends more money on "defense" than any other country in the world - 25 of which are our "allies". This all sounds a lot like all of the "excuses" that the USAF gave when with a budget of 400 billion dollars they were completely unable to find and stop 4 airliners from flying around for an hour and 45 minutes on Sept 11th. "Reasons" such as - "they turned their transponders off so we couldn't track them." "We never thought that they would use airplanes for missiles." "We were looking at threats coming from outside the CONUS".
 
Last edited:
'Tis a sad, sad, sad day in our country if leadership believes that a service-member cannot safely wear his/her uniform in public.
Click to expand...

+1 on that! I wonder how our Marines feel about being told, in essence, they're not trustworthy enough to defend themselves, so they must hide behind civilian clothing. :barf::barf::barf:
 
The jihadists have their own situation, can't compare.

I don't say I LIKE what's going on, just that it'd be a very complex matter to "arm our military".
Denis
 
Wearing uniforms off base has been against USMC regulations for about 10 years now. I suppose because of their job that probably didn't apply to recruiters. They change after coming onto base and before leaving At one time they could wear uniforms in the vehicle, but could not stop to eat or go inside a store etc while enroute. The other branches of the military are discouraged from doing so, but there is no regulation prohibiting it that I'm aware of.

I have a BIL who retired from active duty in 2006 after returning from his 2nd deployment in Iraq. He served with the same reserve unit attacked last week. They did a lot of damage to the bad guys over there and have had a target on their backs ever since. He didn't want to be identified as a Marine in public and for good reason.

On a related note. The 24 year old who attacked the reserve unit was born in Kuwait just about the same time this very reserve unit was involved in Desert Storm freeing him and his family from Saddam Hussein. Talk about being ungrateful. My BIL along with 2 other close friends were there then as well.

That reserve unit deployed again in 2005 and at least 3 more times after my BIL and friends retired. I don't think it was coincidence that this unit was targeted.
 
The times I was deployed while in the Army, I lost count of the number of NDs that occurred. Admittedly, a very high percentage of these were caused by officers with handguns (I rarely heard of any rifles being ND'd). Happened almost daily, until the Battalion CO stated that, going forward, people that ND'd a weapon would have a face to face with him, each and every one, and that the conversation wouldn't be cordial. It stopped after that. Keep in mind that we had clearing barrels placed outside the work areas...the idea was that when you were clearing your weapon, you were to observe if a round was chambered...those who generated BANGs clearly didn't use the proper procedures in clearing their weapons or checking to ensure the chamber was clear. I think many people didn't understand the purpose of the barrels and the expectations of using the barrel.

I agree that more training would be needed, as not everyone will be proficient with sidearms and handguns are a whole different ballgame than shoulder-fired firearms. My military career spanned 1986 through 1995. While things may be different now, I doubt much changed regarding NDs and weapons training. My experience was that annual training was enough for some people but not enough for a surprisingly high number. There were many times where I was on range detail and my peer NCOs would expect me to pass them when they failed qualification...and this was at Fort Bragg, where they take qualifications seriously since the chance of deployment is high. And much of the time, even if a soldier passed, they'd struggle with the manual of arms.

As much as I'd love to see soldiers carrying while on duty, it would also be somewhat scary, unless there was a massive push to educate and train. I agree with the brass's assessment.
 
A few points:

At the end of the Vietnam War in 1973, there were roughly 2.2 million Americans in uniform on active duty. Currently there are about 1.4 million.

Yes there are enough small arms to arm all active duty members that have a need.

I returned from Southeast Asia twice in uniform in 1973. Once through Travis AFB, once through LAX. Never saw or heard any demonstrators. Most people were nice and polite.

The historic proscription against wearing uniforms off base and not stopping to shop applies only to "utility" uniforms, fatigues, BDUs, dungarees, etc., not to dress or other every day uniforms. The temporary measures that may currently be taken by recruiters are just that: temporary.

ABC is not a news source you can rely on and the Marine (Army/Navy/Air Force) Times isn't much better. It is way too premature to know how the Services will deal with this issue. It's a complex issue and will take time to resolve.
 
I doubt there are enough stocks of arms on any sizable military base to arm ALL military personnel assigned to that base.

Depending on branch, only a very small percentage would or could be considered "combat" forces.
The rest, such as support people in offices, maintenance, and so on, are not typically a part of weapons allocations to a particular installation, most especially stateside.

The Marine Corps may consider every member a rifleman or riflewoman, but the other branches don't. :)

I don't see ANY branch maintaining stockpiles of thousands of small arms for each sizable domestic, or even most foreign, bases.

No base I was ever assigned to did, and I was in a line of work that involved checking out some type of weapon every day at work. The armories were simply not that big.

Otherwise, being sensible, MOST such arming would be impractical with rifles.
They tend to get in the way in vehicles, in buildings (offices, chow halls, hospitals, etc.).

Handguns would be more realistic, and there are not enough of those to arm everybody.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Denis
 
DubbleURX said:
The times I was deployed while in the Army, I lost count of the number of NDs that occurred. Admittedly, a very high percentage of these were caused by officers with handguns (I rarely heard of any rifles being ND'd). Happened almost daily, until the Battalion CO stated that, going forward, people that ND'd a weapon would have a face to face with him, each and every one, and that the conversation wouldn't be cordial. It stopped after that. Keep in mind that we had clearing barrels placed outside the work areas...the idea was that when you were clearing your weapon, you were to observe if a round was chambered...those who generated BANGs clearly didn't use the proper procedures in clearing their weapons or checking to ensure the chamber was clear. I think many people didn't understand the purpose of the barrels and the expectations of using the barrel.

I agree that more training would be needed, as not everyone will be proficient with sidearms and handguns are a whole different ballgame than shoulder-fired firearms. My military career spanned 1986 through 1995. While things may be different now, I doubt much changed regarding NDs and weapons training. My experience was that annual training was enough for some people but not enough for a surprisingly high number. There were many times where I was on range detail and my peer NCOs would expect me to pass them when they failed qualification...and this was at Fort Bragg, where they take qualifications seriously since the chance of deployment is high. And much of the time, even if a soldier passed, they'd struggle with the manual of arms.

As much as I'd love to see soldiers carrying while on duty, it would also be somewhat scary, unless there was a massive push to educate and train. I agree with the brass's assessment.
Click to expand...
Very educational, thanks. As you all can tell I was never in the military (I have a chronic condition which prohibits me from service) and I find it very sad that I'm more proficient with a pistol than an infantry man in the military. I know that is all rifle training but damn, you gotta know your way around any kind of weapon, including your standard M9.

I guess the people who are active in the military get a little training on their own personal time at a shooting range? That is, go to a pistol range and shoot a 9mm semi-auto?
 
The greatest majority of military personnel are not "gun people".

Can't speak for today, but when I did my AF time everybody fired the M16 in basic, but after that unless your job involved carry, you never touched a government gun again during your entire hitch.

Guns were very strictly controlled.
No privately-owned guns allowed in barracks.
Privately-owned guns were stored in a base armory.

There were good reasons for that, and they'd still apply today.

You can't just hand out fully automatic rifles & M9 pistols to everybody.
Most won't have sufficient training.
Storage is an issue.
Check In/Check Out is an issue.
Liability is an issue.

Who gets 'em?
When?
How?

Government property carried off base?
Security for government property carried off base?
Liability for government property carried off base (theft, misuse, AD)?
Regular qualification expenses & expanded firearms personnel allocations?

Rifle racks in offices?
Rifle racks in vehicles?
Rifle security when not on body?

When do you load/unload?
Clearing barrels all over base?

Method of sidearm carry/uniform compatibility?
And so on.
Denis
 
Wearing uniforms off base has been against USMC regulations for about 10 years now. I suppose because of their job that probably didn't apply to recruiters. They change after coming onto base and before leaving At one time they could wear uniforms in the vehicle, but could not stop to eat or go inside a store etc while enroute. The other branches of the military are discouraged from doing so, but there is no regulation prohibiting it that I'm aware of.
Click to expand...
Those regulations pertain to working uniforms, such as BDUs; there has never been, to my knowledge, any proscription against Class As/service dress uniforms in public.

So if you are in the military but not in uniform, can you conceal carry?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, within the laws of the state in which one is permanently stationed (though, as bemoaned about so many times in this and other forums, not on base).

The greatest majority of military personnel are not "gun people".

Can't speak for today, but when I did my AF time everybody fired the M16 in basic, but after that unless your job involved carry, you never touched a government gun again during your entire hitch.
Click to expand...
Your first sentence may be true, but the post-9/11, post-USS COLE military has caused most branches (I cannot speak to the Air Force) to acquaint even clerks, supply personnel and cooks with some small arms training for "force protection."
 
If ancillary jobs are getting ongoing training, that's great.
Everybody?
Annually, at least?
Denis
 
The stock level of small arms, rifles, shotguns, machineguns, and pistols, at a given installation depends on the security mission of the units at that installation and for the overall installation. For example, a base assigned no combat aircraft that repairs transports at the depot level will have far fewer weapons assigned than a base that has fighters and/or bombers that are high priority assets.

The number and type of munitions on the base will also be a big driver.

With the exception of security, CID/OSI, and munitions, etc., most small arms are held in reserve until required by an increase in threat level per local security plans.

Beyond the operational installation level, literally tens of thousands of small arms are held at various Service-specific and DoD depots.

Due to the terrorist threat and the nature of my unit's mission, I have been in situations where all personnel were required to have arms "immediately available." In order to do that, the people who didn't regularly carry had to be trained and plugged into the security plan. This is a bear to get done. The lines at the clearing barrels get longer and slower and the occasional NDs in the barrels scare the heck out of you. Even posting NCOs at clearing barrels doesn't prevent them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
235
Replies
1
Views
573
TexasRifleman
T
D
  • Locked
Recruits join armed forces seeking war
Replies
0
Views
299
Desertdog
D
D
  • Locked
Marine Corps Sets Sights On More Precise Shooting
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
STW
S
D
  • Locked
(TX) 'Avoid wearing of uniform' general warns local soldiers
Replies
13
Views
771
BOBE
B
L
  • Locked
Military considers recruiting foreigners
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top