More on Marines and Pistols!

30 Apr 08

Marines Officers and Pistols:

I harbor no illusions with regard to my small influence, and I readily concede that there are viable arguments on both sides of this issue. And, when expressing opinions, one should expect to hear legitimate counter-arguments from those on the other side. Indeed, I have!

My interest in this subject is not just the immediate welfare of individual Marines. It is also in the welfare and longevity of our Civilization, which is absolutely dependant upon our ability to continue to field legitimate fighting forces that are eminently capable of achieving victory

A friend puts it this way:

"Officers, by the very nature of our position and job description, are NOT supposed to be occupied with the same immediate concerns as our troopers. In the field, we officers had best be paying attention to our surroundings, to be sure. But, beyond its being a mere designator of command, the pistol is issued to officers, I was taught, because we ARE officers! As such, we will be consulting with and using maps, communications gear, optical devices, portable computers and all manner of other putatively important things that require two hands and demand unencumbered freedom of movement.

I contend that it is thus a poor decision to take officers' pistols away and replace them with rifles. For me, the objection is psycho-dynamic and personal. When the unit leader carries a rifle, he is continually radiating the subtle message that carrying a rifle is at the core of the his duties. Indeed, the central philosophical tenet of the USMC is that each individual Marine is a competent riflist first, whose primary tactico-strategic job is to effectively engage enemy soldiers, one at a time, with aimed fire, under direction from NCOs and officers.

That's fine; it works! In fact, it's the central idea at the core of any legitimate military organization, reduced to a single sentence. Officers are, naturally, still Marines. But, I was taught, on my first day at OCS, we're something more. Officers' tactico-strategic job is to effectivelydeploy and use Marine riflists in order to achieve the objective, which is passed down the chain of command, and to keep them organized and responsive. The two jobs are mutually exclusive!

Enlisted personnel think like enlisted personnel: (1) find the enemy, (2) close with the enemy, and (4) destroy the enemy by fire and close combat, one at a time. Good for them; that's their job! They need shoulder-fired long arms, because they're the most apt tools currently available for the successful completion of that mission. For them, a pistol may be a nice accessory, but it doesn't fit their job description and is reserved only for personal disaster.

Officers have bigger fish to fry. In real time, we have to understand and deal with collections and masses of opponents, tactics, and identify and respond to spot trends and flows, things a riflist can't, and shouldn't, see while concentrating on rifle sights!

Mandating the M4 carbine for officers creates an incongruent mindset. The lieutenant shouldn't be first through the door. That is not his job! He's got too much additional training, too much additional data-processing power, too much money and time invested in him, and too much big-picture knowledge, to become a casualty in place of a cheaper, less versatile tool whose existence and utility depends on external direction.

That's tough and cold, but it's the nature of this business, and we had all better get over it! When an officer has a rifle as his only gun, he'll begin thinking like an enlisted man, and that will be a disaster, both tactically and strategically."

Comment: When I arrived in Vietnam in 1968, a young, Marine Second Lieutenant/platoon leader, I, too, naively wanted a rifle, and I got one! But, I soon got rid of it, because, as an officer, I had more important duties than shooting at enemy soldiers. I had to direct the actions of fifty guys! My rifle just got in the way, and I quickly got rid of it but continued to carry my 1911.

In military fighting, there are things more important even than the immediately safety of this or that individual. Fighting forces need legitimate integrity if they are to achieve victory! Leaders need to lead, even at great personal risk. Otherwise, the "army" quickly degenerates into little more than a hoard of tourists!

/John