Arm our troops

As Democrats debate the prospect of nominating another Clinton, recent history provides incredible perspective on what I believe is the worst decision made by President Bill Clinton: the disarming of uniformed US military personnel on US military facilities. Implemented early in Clinton’s first term in 1993, the president, through the Department of the Army, disarmed all soldiers and designated military police officers as the sole providers of armed protection on base. Our uniformed men and women, of course, rank as some of the best users of firearms in the American citizenry. They are trained rigorously and are trusted by the nation to use arms in defending our people and values. Why then, according to President Clinton (and Bush and Obama since), should soldiers not be allowed to defend themselves on base?

Tragic events have exposed the susceptibility of our troops to attackers when executing non-combat operations on base. On November 5, 2009, a radical Islamic terrorist and turncoat soldier, Maj. Nidal Hissan, killed thirteen people and injured thirty-two others when he opened fire on US army base Fort Hood.As Hassan fired round after round, US soldiers were reduced to target practice and had no means of returning fire to protect themselves. All told, the domestic terrorist was able to fire off 200 rounds of ammo before military police on base apprehended him. If the same troops were in an Iraqi battlefield, they’d be armed to the teeth and able to shoot back when fired upon. Why is it that, upon returning to U.S. soil, our soldiers suddenly become trapped ducks caged by the walls of their fort? Regardless of your opinion on guns, the people who are entrusted to protect the country shouldn’t have to entrust someone else to defend them. Many Americans have written to politicians urging them to change regulations and let the professional military do its job —eliminate dangerous threats. Hopefully our gutless and incompetent politicians will eventually get this right.

For now though, the pathetic politics of this gun free policy were further highlighted by the July 16, 2015, assaults on a military property in Chattanooga, TN. That day, another radical Islamic terrorist, Muhammad Abdulazeez, fired dozens of rounds into a strip mall Navy recruitment office and then drove across town before unleashing a firestorm on a Navy Support Operational Center. In total, the jihadist took the lives of five uniformed Navy and Marine servicemen. As was the case with Fort Hood and all other military bases, the soldiers couldn’t legally arm themselves in either location of the assaults. From this policy, we derive the political treason that is the Chattanooga shootings: A subsequent investigation into the massacre revealed that at least one Navy officer was, against DOD policy, carrying apersonal firearm and able to return fire during the attack. As a thank-you for his brave and selfless acts to fight off the assailant, the Navy is investigating the heroic officer for discharging his weapon during the assault. While the department insists they won’t be pressing charges against the hero, they continue to overtly scrutinize the obvious valiant actions of an American soldier.

In a world with ISIS and lone wolf terrorists, battlefields don’t exist in the stale manner our nation has previously become comforted to. The country no longer can simply send soldiers off to a faraway place to meet the enemy, fight wars and defend the country. Military men and women are, unfortunately, targets 24 hours a day and everywhere they go. Today’s battlefields are abstract, omnipresent and spontaneous. Reality now tragically means that a quiet and peaceful piece of American life can quickly become a battlefield. You are of course entitled to your opinion on whether the citizenry should be armed to the greatest extent possible; but soldiers, for their safety and ours, must be armed and vigilant everywhere now.

Max Schreiber is a Pratt senior. His column runs on alternate Wednesdays.