Quantcast

Conflicting Reports on Unarmed Marines Expected to Protect Embassy (by Barry Kaplan)

Jan Morgan
 

About the author: Jan is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment Advocate/Speaker/ NRA Certified Firearms Instructor/ Associated Press Award winning investigative journalist/ Owner/Editor JanMorganMedia.com, Sr. Editor/Patriot Update/ Independent Constitutional Conservative. She is closely aligned with the Republican/ ... [read 's FULL BIO]

To post a Marine in a hostile country in front of an embassy and charge him to protect and defend it from enemies, yet not allow him to have live ammo for his weapon is the ultimate in hypocrisy. He might as well pull a feather out of his pocket to fight off aggressors. Some sources in the military are saying our Marines charged with defending the Embassy in Egypt were not allowed to have live ammo in their rifles. Others sources today are saying otherwise. Still searching for truth here. Why would any Marines put out info about not being allowed live ammo if it was not true. It is more difficult to believe that Marines well armed with live ammo would have allowed the walls of our Embassy to be breached.

Pentagon spokesman George Little told Time magazine Thursday: “With or without a weapon, Marines are always armed…I’ve heard nothing to suggest they don’t have ammunition.”

Additionally, per Time, the Marine Corps said in a statement late Thursday that any reports “of Marines not being able to have their weapons loaded per direction from the ambassador are not accurate.”

US Marines often face the awkward position of being placed in situations where they’re outnumbered, and tasked with the responsibility of protecting people and property from opposing aggressors who want to kill and/or destroy them and theirs.  
That’s OK, because that’s just how Marines roll, it’s what they signed up for.  And they’re great at what they do, because they’re highly trained and equipped to handle whatever the enemy wants to throw at them.

EQUIPPED IS THE KEY WORD HERE. Original reports were that our Marines charged with guarding the embassy WERE NOT EQUIPPED. Reportedly Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson “did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition,” according to multiple reports on U.S. Marine Corps blogs spotted by Nightwatch. “She neutralized any U.S. military capability that was dedicated to preserve her life and protect the US Embassy.”

As you already know, on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, Islamic radicals breached the walls of the US Embassy in Egypt, tore down our flag, destroyed it and replaced it with some black thing of their own.  As the story has progressed, it truly disgusted me to read this article –  http://freebeacon.com/reports-marines-not-permitted-live-ammo/.  
Is it a stupid question to ask how in God’s name is it possible for the Marines to protect the lives of others, (not to mention their own) if THEY’RE BASICALLY UNARMED?  I think not.  
If they’re unarmed, what are they even there for, window dressing?
 
What kind of brain pattern does someone in a position of power have to think it’s acceptable to tie the hands of those who are actually tasked with protecting others?  Oh wait, I read that she was in D.C. at the time, so at least SHE was safe from wall breaching Islamic radicals.  If this story is true, the “ambassador” should be held fully responsible for the damage the embassy suffered.  These “peaceful protests” are now spreading to US embassies in other countries, and four Americans have been brutally murdered in Libya.  I pray that more active brains are calling the shots in these other countries.  

This is political correctness gone mad. This is a socially moronic mindset that exists in some altered form of reality.
It is as if Ann Patterson said to the Marines charged with protecting the embassy and its staff, “we will let you look like you are protecting us but its an illusion and if something happens, you are screwed but not me… I will be in DC.”

**UPDATE**

Further Marine spokesman at Pentagon Lt Col Chris Hughes says these reports are NOT true. This is on the record:

“The Ambassador and RSO have been completely and appropriately engaged with the security situation. No restrictions on weapons or weapons status have been imposed. This information comes from the Det Commander at AMEMB Cairo.”

Read more at foxnews.com

(Barry Kaplan was a Marine Sgt. having served from 1981 to 85. He is a Brooklyn born jewish republican who has owned his own insurance agency for 25 years. I asked him to share his take on this position of posting our Marines as guards without live ammo. )

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • sick of Owebama

    Jan, I say pull all Americans out and let them kill themselves. Less Muslims to deal with.They have been fighting since Abraham had Ishmael and Isaac. The fighting will not end until the Lord calls us all home.

  • us army retired

    how stupid can they be are these ambassadors brain dead like all of them in dc

  • Its a conflict of orders – The Marines chain of command requires them to have live ammo and be armed, but the “Diplomat in charge of embassy” has final say on whether they can be armed or not. Unfortunately Diplomats live in a fuzzy little Liberal mindset all their own, and are more likely than not to say “why can’t we all just get along, and no Ammo you war mongers” — unfortunately our Egyptian ambassador was in DC on 9/11 – I think she planned it that way…..

  • I doubt seriously they didn’t have ammo… HOWEVER… being ex-military.. I can say there is a possibility that they had their ammo in their pouches and not loaded. I used to do border traces and we had verrrrrrry specific engagement rules. Along with those rules.. no weapons loaded.. no weapons to be pointed toward any position except at our own… list goes on and on…. There were even certain rules that kept us from firing EVEN if we were taking fire…(these situations were generally more of “What-if’.. then you “do-this” though..) I can’t see them being told not to have ammo. I really can’t. Though.. I ‘could’ see a higher ranking member dropping the ball on the engagement rules… It happens.. and I can’t play arm-chair commando second guessing them.

    • After reading more on this… I kinda have a doubt now… they may not have had any ammo…

  • haroldson

    let the muslims fight among them selves, also send the ones in our government over to them, we have enough problems wit the 70 some odd commies sitting in congress now.

  • Scott

    I would like to put something out there. The basic facts are these. Unless I heard from one of the Marines (anonymously as far as the military is concerned, but it would have to be able to be verified) who is STATIONED at the embassy in Egypt that they had ammo and were able to actually defend (then why the HELL did they NOT defend?) the embassy, you can take this report and use it in the outhouse. If that LtCol was ordered to give this statement, he would have no choice but to give it as long as he was not POSITIVE that it was an actual falsehood. If he was told that it was the truth by higher up, including the ambassador and/or the idiot in chief, it would be his DUTY to issue the statement. And one he couldn’t get out of UNLESS he knew for certain that it was an out and out lie, or, possibly, that national security is involved. Which we all know that the Reeking One would pull just to CYA.

  • Tom

    “Additionally, per Time, the Marine Corps said in a statement late Thursday that any reports “of Marines not being able to have their weapons loaded per direction from the ambassador are not accurate.”
    WTF! Per direction of the ambassador! Hell no! Those weapons need to be loaded 24/7….. PERIOD!!! Only a fool would suggest otherwise….

  • Barry

    Steven Thomas there is no ex-military. You’re good for life. You’re just in active veteran status now.

  • Pic

    It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, if the marines had live ammo there should have been a lot of dead bodies all around.

  • sedg632

    Having been a Marine serving during Viet Nam I have firsthand
    experience regarding guard posts and ammunition. I was assigned posts in several different locations
    world-wide. We were equipped with a weapon
    (M-14) and no ammunition if the assignment was considered a “non-hostile”
    location. Our only means of defense was
    using the weapon employing horizontal and/or vertical butt strokes or engaging
    the invader using hand to hand combat techniques. It would not surprise me if this mentality
    still exists in the Corps. The current situation is further exacerbated by the
    appointment of liberal minded diplomats now serving around the globe in high
    ranking, i.e. ambassadorial positions. Combat, however, was another matter. We were not allowed to “lock and load” until
    just before stepping out into “Indian Country”.
    Even then we were supposed to engage the weapon’s safety to prevent
    accidental discharges. This practice was
    not always adhered to by all concerned as it was too easy to forget to take the
    safety off before firing when engaged in a Sh*t Storm. Although one never admitted to humping with
    his safety off. Bottom line, I believe,
    current administrative policy supports the belief that it is easier to deal with several dead Marines than to
    deal with multiple locals (attackers) scattered about the area, dead. For as all of us know there is nothing more deadly
    than a Marine and his rifle!! When
    loaded that is!

  • This is a MYTH. Educate yourself people.

  • Yes…Apparently Conservatives are cheering for America to fail as Americans are coming home in caskets.

  • Dennis

    It just seems that if the Marines did use deadly force that there would be bodies and that the news groups would be all over this. I know from a family member that Marines don’t miss