US Troops in Afghanistan asked to disarm for Panetta visit.

www.nytimes.com...

In a sign of the nervousness surrounding Mr. Panetta’s trip, the Marines and other troops who were waiting in a tent for the defense secretary to speak were abruptly asked by their commander to get up, place their weapons — M-16 and M-4 automatic rifles and 9-mm pistols — outside the tent and then return unarmed. The commander, Sgt. Maj. Brandon Hall, told reporters he was acting on orders from superiors.

“All I know is, I was told to get the weapons out,” he said. Asked why, he replied, “Somebody got itchy, that’s all I’ve got to say. Somebody got itchy; we just adjust.”

Normally, American forces in Afghanistan keep their weapons with them when the defense secretary visits and speaks to them. The Afghans in the tent waiting for Mr. Panetta were not armed to begin with, as is typical.

Was the administration acting on intelligence that there may have been a threat to Panetta from US forces? Does the administration feel all of the troops stationed there are at risk for PTSD?

Has this ever happened before? What does it say about the relationship between the armed forces and the administration?

WTH does this mean? It's concerning, that's for sure.

Regardless, we should NOT be there. It's a waste of lives and money.

reply to post by KillerQueen


When the SecDef is afraid to face his own troops... Wussy.

I actually don't blame him for being afraid. He SHOULD be afraid, and so should all of the other monsters in charge of the government. We here on ATS are not the only people who are becoming aware of what's being done to this country. Believe it or not, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are NOT mindless automatons. They know they are there for the wrong reasons, that their brethren are being killed for NO reason, and they are getting pissed.

Osama is dead. It's beyond time to come home.

Our secretary of Defense (who has very limilited military experience) doesn't trust his own employees...
Sounds like typical corporate America.
(no love for Mr. Panetta to be found here)

2 years in Army intelligence is his entire military history.
Being director of the CIA I don't trust this turkey as far as I can spit.

What does it say about the relationship between the armed forces and the administration?

They surely know that a large number of our service men over there support Ron Paul and his stance on that war. And we all know that Ron Paul supporters are terrorists. /sarcasm
I think the admin. is afraid of them. Bunch of pansies that they are.
imo

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

Being director of the CIA I don't trust this turkey as far as I can spit.

Ummm. You got a little on your chin there.

I think this thread could be combined with this thread for they are somehow possibly connected...

ATS

Time to put mind collaborations too work.

reply to post by KonquestAbySS


It seems to me it's either a false flag to justify disarming the troops or it was a genuine message or threat to Panetta.

reply to post by KillerQueen


The timing seems to perfect, I am not pointing fingers, but there is obviously no trust among the ranks of the U.S. Government. Asking troops to disarm in a combat hazard environment is asking a little too much...Someone knows something we don't.

Does the secret service disarm when around Panetta? Should the secret service disarm everytime they are near an elected official? Troops are supposed to protect the nation, if we need security for the security, that is an admission that the troops are not really there to protect. Right?

It may have been so as to not "offend" the Afgan delegation, hard to feel you negotiated when one party is armed.

Whats the betting he wore a kevlar vest just in case tho.