Gates cites lapses in Fort Hood rampage

[Purplehood]

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday an investigation into the Fort Hood shootings found the military isn't sufficiently prepared to prevent similar attacks in the future.
Commanders must be encouraged to intervene if they think someone within the ranks is a threat, Gates said. He directed Army Secretary John McHugh to make changes and expects new policies to be in place by summer.
As many as eight Army officers could face discipline for failing to do anything when the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood rampage displayed erratic behavior early in his military career, two officials familiar with the case said, speaking on condition of anonymity before the report's release.

I agree. The mindset just is not there...

[A-R]

assuming you got this info from a web news story. do you have link to the full story? interested to read the entirety of it. thanks.

[Oldgringo]

It's blame placing time and heads must role, by Golly! As usual, "the horse has already left the barn".

[57Coastie]

assuming you got this info from a web news story. do you have link to the full story? interested to read the entirety of it. thanks.

Here's a report in the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/us/po ... 8au&emc=au" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

[gregthehand]

No kidding they aren't ready.

When I was in the Army at Fort Hood we had this kid that worked down in the motor pool and he was really off. They were inspecting his room and actually found a shank list so instead of pushing him out of the Army they just said he couldn't go to the rifle range. I don't think they sent him to a shrink either. Then he went out to a gun store and bought a surplus M1 Garand and just showed back up to the CQ desk on like a Saturday with it. The guy who was on duty said he just walked up to the barracks and was going to just go up to his room with it. So they just took it and stuck it in the armory and then told him he couldn't check it out. You'd think something else would have been done right? NOPE. So when he unit went to Iraq they finally give him a rifle and ammunition and take him to the range a lot to teach him how to shoot his rifle and handle it safely. Remember he didn't get it taken away before because he was a bad shot and had poor safety. THEY TOOK IT AWAY BECAUSE HE SAID HE WANTED TO KILL PEOPLE IN HIS UNIT. BEFORE HE WAS A POOR SHOT AND COULDN'T QUALIFY SO INSTEAD OF KICKING HIM OUT OF THE ARMY THEY JUST WAITED UNTIL HE WAS IN A COMBAT ZONE, GAVE HIM A FULL LOAD OF AMMO, AND THEN TAUGHT HIM HOW TO MORE EFFECTIVELY USE HIS RIFLE!!

Well about two weeks into the deployment he wounds up have an ND and shot a hole through about three living quarter trailers. Kicked him out right? NOPE. Took the bolt out of his rifle in a combat zone and he went without a working rifle for the rest of his deployment in Iraq.

After the unit got back he took about a month of leave and went down to Austin to get a sex change and came back a "she". Apparently he had been saving his money up for years to pay for it and all his deployment and enlistment bonus cash went to it. For that they finally kicked him out about four months before he was supposed to get out anyway.

I should point out that while they never kicked this guy out they did push people in my unit out for being over weight, failing their physical fitness tests, or going AWOL. So instead of working with some guys that have trouble with weight, running, or both they just kicked them out. But a kid that says he wants to kill everyone, is unsafe as can be, and has obvious glaring mental issues...... Yeah we should keep him and teach him how to shoot better.

When the re-enlistment NCO asked me if wanted to re-up for no bonus but my choice of special schools (airborne, air assault, etc) I laughed in his face.

[Purplehood]

No kidding they aren't ready.

When I was in the Army at Fort Hood we had this kid that worked down in the motor pool and he was really off. They were inspecting his room and actually found a shank list so instead of pushing him out of the Army they just said he couldn't go to the rifle range. I don't think they sent him to a shrink either. Then he went out to a gun store and bought a surplus M1 Garand and just showed back up to the CQ desk on like a Saturday with it. The guy who was on duty said he just walked up to the barracks and was going to just go up to his room with it. So they just took it and stuck it in the armory and then told him he couldn't check it out. You'd think something else would have been done right? NOPE. So when he unit went to Iraq they finally give him a rifle and ammunition and take him to the range a lot to teach him how to shoot his rifle and handle it safely. Remember he didn't get it taken away before because he was a bad shot and had poor safety. THEY TOOK IT AWAY BECAUSE HE SAID HE WANTED TO KILL PEOPLE IN HIS UNIT. BEFORE HE WAS A POOR SHOT AND COULDN'T QUALIFY SO INSTEAD OF KICKING HIM OUT OF THE ARMY THEY JUST WAITED UNTIL HE WAS IN A COMBAT ZONE, GAVE HIM A FULL LOAD OF AMMO, AND THEN TAUGHT HIM HOW TO MORE EFFECTIVELY USE HIS RIFLE!!

Well about two weeks into the deployment he wounds up have an ND and shot a hole through about three living quarter trailers. Kicked him out right? NOPE. Took the bolt out of his rifle in a combat zone and he went without a working rifle for the rest of his deployment in Iraq.

After the unit got back he took about a month of leave and went down to Austin to get a sex change and came back a "she". Apparently he had been saving his money up for years to pay for it and all his deployment and enlistment bonus cash went to it. For that they finally kicked him out about four months before he was supposed to get out anyway.

I should point out that while they never kicked this guy out they did push people in my unit out for being over weight, failing their physical fitness tests, or going AWOL. So instead of working with some guys that have trouble with weight, running, or both they just kicked them out. But a kid that says he wants to kill everyone, is unsafe as can be, and has obvious glaring mental issues...... Yeah we should keep him and teach him how to shoot better.

When the re-enlistment NCO asked me if wanted to re-up for no bonus but my choice of special schools (airborne, air assault, etc) I laughed in his face.

I saw crazy stuff like that during my service too. The regulations are straightforward for certain situations. If the regulations do not cover something than the easiest thing to do is move the transgressor on to the next unit and let them handle it. Extremely common practice.

[Oldgringo]

Purplehood wrote:

I saw crazy stuff like that during my service too. The regulations are straightforward for certain situations. If the regulations do not cover something than the easiest thing to do is move the transgressor on to the next unit and let them handle it. Extremely common practice.

Isn't "move 'em out or up" pretty much SOP for dealing with incompetents/underachievers in all government employment - uniformed and civilian?

[LaserTex]

I was removed as a supervisor for recommending IMMEDIATE DISCHARGE for a troop that pulled a knife on a Korean vendor at Osan. 3 1/2 weeks later he almost died when he finally got his wish to see if martial arts were really "all that".

I told 'em he was an idiot. I even said it really, really loud...to many people.

They gave his new supervisor (my boss) a Letter of Counseling for being his supervisor so I won.

Joined June 4, 1985 - filed for retirement 1 July 2004 - Terminal Leave and Ceremony 1 April 2005 - First day at same desk as civilian - 18 April 2005 - Actual retirement 1 Jul 2005. I did it as FAST as I could.

Doug

[Purplehood]

Purplehood wrote:

I saw crazy stuff like that during my service too. The regulations are straightforward for certain situations. If the regulations do not cover something than the easiest thing to do is move the transgressor on to the next unit and let them handle it. Extremely common practice.

Isn't "move 'em out or up" pretty much SOP for dealing with incompetents/underachievers in all government employment - uniformed and civilian?

Yes. Mediocrity rises to the top.