07d356623962f5b108a9c198266c8d5d1
Instead Of Being Issued Guns, Marine Recruiters Are Being Told NOT TO WEAR UNIFORMS To Avoid Attack
Thumb profile photo
July 21, 2015, 06:26 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
So much for these colors don't run.

According to an article in the Military Times, "The military services have taken swift action to increase security after Thursday's shootings," not by arming recruiters, but by "closing some facilities and telling Marine recruiters not to wear uniforms in public" [Marine recruiters told not to wear uniforms after attackby Jeff Schogol, Military Times, July 19, 2015]

One of the steps [Defense Secretary Ash] 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.

Of course, much of the mystique and appeal of the Marine Corps to potential recruits lies in the uniform. On a very small scale, this is a strategic victory for Islamic terrorism by disrupting the USMC's ability to attract new members. On a larger scale, it shows how even the armed services are being forced to disguise themselves for their own safety in what is ostensibly their country.

This isn't unique. The same activity took place in Great Britain following the murder of Lee Rigby in broad daylight by Islamic converts from Nigeria. Soldiers were even told not to inform strangers they were serving in the British armed forces [Proud soldiers are told not to wear their uniforms in public: Move to foil Woolwich repeat denounced as "victory for terror," by Larisa Brown and James Slack, Daily Mail, December 5, 2014]

Canadian soldiers in Quebec were told not to wear their uniforms in Quebec following a similar "lone wolf" Islamic terrorist attack  [Military members in Quebec urged not to wear uniforms when off duty, CBC News, October 23, 2014]

And the French military also told its soldiers to run and hide after a shooting [Soldiers banned from wearing uniforms off base, France 24, March 20, 2012]

In each of these cases, there was snickering by American conservatives about how our military men would never be so intimidated. So much for that talking point.

What it really represents is a collapse in the authority of the state. There was an attack on one of the premiere symbols of American identity, the military, perhaps one of the few that unites the American nation and the American government. And rather than responding in outraged fury, the response has been to act as if somehow the military invited the attack.

Needless to say, when it comes to other targets, this standard does not apply. One of the most popular slogans at the indoctrination camps we call universities is "Tell Me I Was Asking For It." The idea is that a woman can wear whatever she wants in any circumstances and not have it be interpreted that she is inviting rape.

However, a Marine recruiter wearing his uniform in public is evidently inviting attack. The chain of command apparently agrees. And somehow I doubt there will be any demonstrations of solidarity with the Corps on the campuses of American universities.