The View From Olympus: Hiding Under the Bed
On a recent trip to Washington, I was scheduled to have a meeting on board the Marine Corps base at Quantico. The base was effectively closed to people without a government ID. I have gone through the main gate at Quantico more times than I care to count, over almost 50 years. No more, it seems.
I soon found the same was true for almost all military bases. Why? It seems that after we killed the commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, General Soleimani, someone up top panicked at the thought of Iranian retaliation. Perhaps they suddenly remembered why states generally avoid war by assassination; it is a game at which two can play. In any case, CYA came quickly into gear and the bases were shut down tight. It’s like kids who have been shooting berries with their slingshots at passing cars. Suddenly one car stops, shifts into reverse and comes roaring back. The kids all run home and hide under the bed.
We seem to have forgotten that our armed services are supposed to be fighting organizations. Hiding under the bed may not be the optimal way to express martial prowess. The directive to close the bases may have come from above the service level; I certainly hope that is the case. But regardless of its source, I think there is a better way to secure our military facilities, one based on fighting rather than fear.
If “terrorists” want to attack military bases on American soil, there are more likely ways to do that than driving through the main gate. Base perimeters are often long, and not all of it can be guarded all the time. The most likely way a “terrorist” attack will come is from within: from members of the U.S. military whose primary allegiance lies elsewhere. We have already had that happen, and I suspect we will see more of it. Perimeter defense helps not one bit against that threat.
What would help in every case would be a simple directive that all officers and staff NCOs are expected to be armed all the time when on base, whether they are in uniform or in civilian clothes. The essence of effective response is speed, and no other measure would guarantee as fast a reaction. If a service--say, the Marine Corps?--wanted to go for even more speed, it could arm all its people all the time they are on base. Nobody is bothered by the fact that cops carry guns. Should we not trust our servicemen as much as we do cops?
More, each service should issue an order that whether on base or not, whether armed or not, all servicemen (not women) should attack any aspiring mass shooter. We have already seen cases where mass shootings were stopped because the nearest man attacked. I have written previously about the need for a universal male militia, where we ask every man in America to sign a pledge to do exactly that. Who better to lead by example than our servicemen? Marines are already noted for stopping to help in traffic accidents or other situations where civilians are in danger or hurt. Why shouldn’t the Corps take the next step and enlist every Male Marine against 4GW on our own soil?
Why do I say men but not women? Because, cultural Marxism to the contrary, men and women are inherently different and their traditional social roles reflect their inherent differences. In war, women’s duty is to encourage their men to fight and get themselves out of the way. Otherwise the men will drop the mission to protect the women. More, most women cannot do what physically needs to be done in this case. Despite what you see on television and in the movies, petite, lovely women do not beat up big men. They get clocked, real fast. Pit a Mazda Miata against a Cadillac Escalade in a head-on and see what happens.
In the face of “terrorist” threats to their bases right here at home, our armed services need to fight, not hide under the bed. If the trumpet sounds uncertain, who will follow?
Interested in what Fourth Generation war in America might look like? Read Thomas Hobbes’ new future history, Victoria.