UPDATE! There is a quiet fury going on with many Marines because as you can read in this story, officials keep giving more details of this "incident"...via Marine Corps Times...
Marine embassy security guards smashed personal weapons with sledgehammers and scattered them before departing Yemen as the U.S. Embassy was being evacuated this week, officials with Marine Corps Headquarters said.No matter how you dress this up, this looks bad.
The officials offered new details of the Marines' departure in the wake of differing reports about what had become of personal weapons the troops had to leave behind before departing the country via the airport at Sanaa. A Pentagon spokesman told reporters Wednesday that Marines had handed over the weapons to Yemeni officials before boarding commercial aircraft for departure, while staff with the Sanaa airport told the Associated Press that Houthi rebels had seized U.S. Embassy vehicles, some with weapons inside.
A Marine official with knowledge of the movement told Marine Corps Times Wednesday that all personal and crew-served weapons had been rendered inoperable, but could not address how they had been made so or how they were disposed of before the Marines departed.
(Original Post)
Something strange is going on when it comes to the USMC core capability of embassy evacuation.
If you've been following the news lately the current controversy (for the portion of the American public that pays attention...probably around 3%) is that Marine Security Guards had there weapons seized by rebels in Yemen. Quite honestly I was gonna run with it and even posted about it under the title "WTF!"...but took it down. I needed more info before I went high and to the right. Now we have this from Marine Corps Times....
Officials with the Sanaa airport told the Associated Press earlier today that Houthi rebels seized more than 25 official U.S. vehicles in the wake of the hasty departure of embassy staff, some with personal weapons left inside.Read the entire story here, but I've got to ask the question.
Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren told reporters that the embassy's Marine security guard detachment destroyed larger weapons, including machine guns, and added that he believed they had turned over personal weapons to Yemeni officials because they could not take them on commercial flights.
But the Marine official, who asked that he not be identified because he was unauthorized to discuss the situation, said no working Marine weapons, whether crew-served or personal rifles and sidearms, were seized or handed over as the troops departed.
"No Marines handed over a functional weapon to anybody," the official said.
Why are embassy evacuation suddenly becoming more chaotic? Is this a State Dept problem? Are they so enamored with "appearance" that they prevent the orderly evacuation of personnel from threatened areas? Is this a USMC issue? Is the desire to validate the SPMAGTF-CR so great that instead of utilizing capabilities that are already built into the force we're jumping through hoops to use them in missions they aren't suited for?
Is it a combination?
Regardless think back to the in many ways failed Bush and Clinton administrations. You would never have heard a story about Marines leaving weapons behind while evacuating an embassy.
Sidenote. Unless they used thermite or white phosphorus there is no such thing as making weapons inoperable by simply removing components. We're getting fed some feel good bullshit on this one.
Sidenote 1. Spiking barrels, smashing receivers etc...do not render a weapon unusable. I stand by the statement that melting them down in place is the only real way to ensure that the enemy can't use the weapons against you in the future (and that's ignoring the fact that the scrap metal will probably be used in some form of explosive device even if you are successful). Come on people this isn't hard to figure out....I mean hell, show me an AR sitting in the trash with a busted receiver and if I'm bored enough I can bring it back to life with a simple, unregulated parts kit!
Sol,
ReplyDeleteA 10lb sledge on the muzzle and the receiver will put just about any rifle in the business, including AK-47s, permanently out of function. With a set of tools and some time, you can 'make adjustments' internally which are pretty much guaranteed to render the weapon ineffective within a round or two as well.
Of course a period M16 would fail just from lookin' at it but SOF units in Vietnam were issued special spike-rounds which, chambered with a piece of string for the trigger would blow up the weapon for sure.
It was intended to safe specific, high value, systems like the Stoner 63 and M60 which the Viets and Pathet Lao prized but it was also used in certain weapons of the other side to send the message that playing with guns meant death even if we weren't there to shoot them.
This poisoned ammo tactic has continued into the present day with the last example I know of being FSA forces which were finding as much as 80% of their delivered or stolen ammo having 2-10 rounds which, if fired, would take their head off their shoulders (missile propellant IIRR, rattles the same but about 20X hotter).
I would not want to use a single one of those weapons until it had been inspected and proof fired by an experienced gunsmith.
That said, in Yemen, you are seeing the bastardization of the Egyptian and Libyan conditions, where there wasn't anybody particularly close by and so charter air and SOF in plain clothes meant faster and easier snatches from particularly the deep desert oil facilities in Gadhafi's playground.
It is true that you can get to the situation a lot faster by air than "We need 50 amphibs for this mission..."-
JP3 Marines From The Surf
http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/Pictures/Pictures/Jurassic3-32.jpg
But you cannot control the method of extraction and so of course there is chaos factored limits on the total tonnage of goods as well as people.
If the Marines would consider allocating just one force to a C-17 or A400M (heavy weight vehicle) delivery capability and specifically make target studies (of vulnerable Western facilities in flash point areas) similar to the SAC ones back in the 1960s which saw us using dry lake beds for recovering bombers; we could theoretically skip the Osprey and the F-35 plus a passle of LHA-6 to instead concentrate on a small fleet of dedicated STOL airlifters which could bring in 4-5 pickup trucks like this-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Gulf_War_C-5A_reserve_aircraft.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Dodge_military_ambulance%2C_Southport.JPG
(Sans Red Cross but with armored cabs that are still lighter than an HMMWV) and an equal number of light armored escorts-
Deletehttp://www.deutschesheer.de/resource/resource/MzEzNTM4MmUzMzMyMmUzMTM1MzMyZTM2MzEzMDMwMzAzMDMwMzAzMDY3Njc3ODY4Nzc2MjYzNmYyMDIwMjAyMDIw/Wiesel1_MK_Schneider.jpg
Within an operational theory that includes:
1. Declared IFE by civilian coded flight which has a registered flight plan but nonetheless, doesn't exist.
2. C-xx comes down (nighttime in all likelihood) and debusses forces from the end of the runway with turn and
relaunch immediately thereafter.
3. Vehicles bust a fence and immediately move to the objective to board people and high value cargo.
4. Vehicles move -out of- the city and as soon as they have sufficient "He who follows at all, better have a will registered." separation from the threat, they make for a straight stretch of road or a secondary feeder airport.
5. The same jet, or another one, fed by tankers, drops in and the entire team rolls onboard and takes off.
Provided you have the inflight refueling available, it's inconceivable that a bunch of 2 ton trucks and 5 ton tankettes are going to be heavier than what you have already burned off in getting to the objective area so a tactical launch should be possible-
A400M High Performance Takeoff 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GnbOsEKlLo
A400M HPT 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBPs1u94gbY
Point Being:
You have to have a 3 billion dollar LHD/LHA hull and a 10 billion dollar ARG escort force to launch a serious rescue and if things are headed south in a hurry, you may or may not have time or forces to cover all sea basins.
If you shift to air-only, you can reduce that to 172 million flyaway and about 500 million lifetime (per A400M) and if it's still 'evacuation' rather than 'hostage rescue' then you need no escorts and can deploy to any region which looks like it's going to melt down on very short notice with the ground force already onboard.
Which would you rather try and explain to the nation: "People of America, tonight we lost an SOF transport shot down by a shoulder fire missile. I know you will join with me in grieving for the families whose 180 members have made the ultimate sacrifice..."
Or...
'My fellow Americans. In attempting to evacuate the embassy in Taiwan, our Marine Amphibious Ready Group was mistaken for a Carrier Strike Force and sunk by mass anti shipping missile attack. Total losses number in the low thousands. I must, with regret, ask Congress for a declaration of war with China."
The Marines as now configured are not useful because they take too long, cost to much and represent a 'National Asset' value so high that the difference between a ho-hum evac of another flaming spiral of a failed state and an all out mazcat is basically how much the threat (which may be non-state or Hybrid with some pretty significant high-tech tools) wants to make it.
If the president can't risk them, he won't use them and the American Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for the capability.
i don't quite get you.
Deletewho is gonna do the job if its not the USMC?
the US Army flying in from god knows where aboard CH-47s? the USAF fllying in with C-130's?
the issue is that the USMC is tailor made for the job no matter how you want to dump on the mission, equipment etc. my issue is broad and all encompassing. i won't take the time to dig into the weeds on it because i don't have time, that isn't what this blog does. it takes an overview looks at things and moves on.
these tankette ideas coupled with A400Ms is pure fantasy. i won't indulge you on it.
to me the problem is a bit simpler. you make a timely decision to get your people out. you get them out and in such a way as equipment...even destroyed equipment isn't left behind. its as simple as that. if the MEU was assembled in a decent amount of time with a timely decision to get our people out then you wouldn't even have the issue of destroying weapons come up. THAT IS THE FUCKING ISSUE.
Why not grab every tiny piece of rifle and put it in to pants pockets? Leave everything else and throw the parts in different places... it's better then nothing.
ReplyDeletei don't know cause i was never MSG but the idea that they have protocols to destroy weapons when they reach an airport because they can't take them on a civilian airline is a bit much for me to swallow.
Deletethis whole thing sounds half baked but everyone wants to swallow the bullshit.
In good old times you just dig a hole, put in it your rifle, before that you remove lock and throw it in the river or in to another hole... and done. Simple times.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThe part I don't understand, is the part they board a civilian airplane.
DeleteEven if that's the case, would not be better to freight a plane and get people and equipment in it?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhile I was not there to know all of the facts, what it sounds like is that the Marines were told by the airline that they could not take their weapons so they had to destroy them or the Marines would not be able to board.
ReplyDeleteThis is very different from Marines leaving their weapons behind like the headline originally said. I think it is time to hold the airline accountable for making Marines leave weapons!
what kind of airline is going to be chartered by CENTCOM or the State Dept to evacuate US personnel (that alone is a weird idea to me) and then have the Marines show up at the airport and tell them that they can't take weapons with them?
Deletethis might make perfect sense to everyone and maybe i'm an outlier but it really reeks. something is off here. i can't put my finger on it but this sounds weird. a ball was dropped i just can't put my finger on it.
That is exactly it - you can bring weapons on chartered airlines. Marines fly chartered airlines coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan all of the time with weapons under the seats not in pelican cases so you can do your weapon counts. Any airline that denies Marines coming out of a war zone the right to carry their weapons needs to be blacklisted until bankrupt!!
ReplyDeleteso you're on board with us being fed bullshit on this right?
DeleteUnless new developments show otherwise, 100% of my anger is focused on the chartered airlines and customs because Marines normally fly with weapons
ReplyDelete