There are two lessons from the recent murders on the Pensacola base that are staring us in the face, one on gun control and one on an interventionist foreign policy.
Gun Control
One of my biggest surprises when I got on U.S. military bases (I was an economics professor at the U.S. Navy’s Naval Postgraduate School for 33 years and I taught a few times at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, where the murders occurred) is that the bases have pretty strict gun control. When I drove on to the Naval Postgraduate School, I wanted to carry a gun in my trunk but I never dared do so because, at least in my understanding, every time I drove on the NPS base I would be committing a crime.
The lesson should have been learned from the Fort Hood shootings, where the murderer knew that people were forbidden from carrying arms and so were a soft target. But it wasn’t.
As a result, even military personnel lack the weapons to fight back.
I understand the dangers of allowing people to carry weapons. But on a military base? Really? Of all the people who can be trusted to carry guns on American soil, I would put military personnel at or near the top.
Interventionist Foreign Policy
Here’s what Saudi Air Force Second Lieutenant Ahmed Mohammed al-Shamrani, the murderer, said:
I’m not against you for just being American, I don’t hate you because your freedoms, I hate you because every day you supporting, funding and committing crimes not only against Muslims but also humanity. I am against evil, and America as a whole has turned into a nation of evil. What I see from America is the supporting of Israel which is invasion of Muslim countrie, I see invasion of many countries by it’s troops, I see Guantanamo Bay. I see cruise missiles, cluster bombs and UAV.
“Your decision-makers, the politicians, the lobbyists and the major corporations are the ones gaining from your foreign policy, and you are the ones paying the price for it.
“What benefit is it to the American people to suffer for the sake of supporting Israel?
“Do you expect to transgress against others and yet be spared retribution?
“How many more body-bags are American families willing to receive?
“For how long can the US survive this war of attrition?
“The US Treasury spend billions of dollars, in order to give Americans a false sense of security .
“The security is shared destiny
“You will not be safe until we live it as reality in pleastain, and American troops get out of our lands .”
There are lots of typos in the above, but the bottom line is that his upset was against a U.S. government that intervenes and kills in other countries. That’s what motivated Osama bin Laden’s f0llowers and it is the self-described motivation of al-Shamrami.
READER COMMENTS
Loquitur Veritatem
Dec 10 2019 at 5:12pm
Your first point isn’t new, but valid nonetheless. Your second point isn’t new, either, but needs elaboration.
It’s true that people in foreign countries can be angered, sometimes justifiably, by what the U.S. government does in those countries. The trick is to sort the justifiable interventions from the unjustifiable ones. It’s easy to distinguish between the U.S. invasion of Germany to put an end to World War II (in Europe) and, say, the gunboat diplomacy of the 1920s on behalf of particular American interests. But there are lots of in=between cases that aren’t so easy. Strict isolationism isn’t the answer because waiting until we see “the whites of their eyes” is a dumb defense strategy.
There’s also the question of the writer’s motivation. U.S. interventions in the Middle East haven’t necessarily had anything to do with U.S. support of Israel. His evident hatred of Israel doesn’t put him on a high moral plane from which to lecture the U.S.
Mark Bahner
Dec 11 2019 at 11:14pm
It’s worked pretty well for Switzerland for longer than the U.S. has existed.
Jon Murphy
Dec 12 2019 at 9:22am
“Waiting for the whites of their eyes” was not a defense strategy. The enemy was known. The enemy was attacking. It was a strategy to conserve ammunition. And it only failed because the Americans fortified Breed’s Hill, which was in range of British cannons as opposed to Bunker Hill, which was not.
“Waiting for the whites of their eyes” is not a metaphor for isolationism or non-interventionism (for that matter, isolationism is not akin to non-interventionism, so that comparison doesn’t work for you either).
Chad Seagren
Dec 10 2019 at 5:18pm
I am an advocate for a robust rights to own and carry firearms for private citizens, but I am also just fine with military bases being essentially “gun-free” zones, with the exception of those with official permission.
In the Marine Corps, in garrison (that is, at “home” rather than deployed) great effort is taken to ensure that Marines only have access to weapons and live ammunition under strictly controlled circumstances. For example, at the firing range (every Marine is required to fire his/her weapon every year) Marines and officers are literally patted down to ensure no live ammunition is smuggled (accidentally or intentionally) off the range. Everyone’s issued weapon is stored in the armory, and only retrieved for official reasons, etc, and must be returned immediately after use.
I always thought they did this because of hard lessons learned of Marines turning weapons on themselves or others in isolated, but memorable events/incidents over the years. I’m certainly not saying that the vast majority of Marines aren’t sufficiently trustworthy. I’m not saying the vast majority of Marines aren’t highly skilled or highly professional. Many of whom, admittedly, would be exactly the ones we would *want* to be armed in the case of an active shooter.
But the likelihood of experiencing an active-shooter situation on any particular base is vanishingly small. Whereas, the likelihood of seeing a Marine (or soldier, or sailor, etc) who is distraught and needs professional help in some form or another is higher. I think the probability is substantially higher of a young Marine needing psychological help resorting to violence against himself or others. That is the main reason I am okay with draconian gun restrictions on military bases. Allowing that Marine easier access to firearms would, I think, at the margin be counter-productive. I could maybe be swayed with evidence to the contrary, but allowing more liberal carry/access on bases would not be my first policy response.
mbka
Dec 11 2019 at 11:17pm
Chad – doesn’t this argument apply even more so to gun ownership by private citizens? Is it not also borne out by the fact that the great majority of US firearm deaths are suicides? If the military knows that its weapons pose more threat through self harm (and possibly accidents) than opportunity for self defence, for a population highly trained in weapons use, how can gun ownership by ordinary citizens be advocated at all?
I’m not even trying to argue for gun control here – just pointing out the blatant mismatch between expert opinion (the US military on guns) and public opinion (the US public on guns).
Radford Neal
Dec 11 2019 at 11:13am
If you take the stated reasons at face value, you could conclude that a less interventionist foreign policy would reduce these incidents. But should you? Isn’t it possible that they are lying?
Not that they wouldn’t be happy for the US to intervene less. But once they accomplish that, can one actually be sure that they won’t just go on to their next reason to kill Americans?
As an analogy, anti-semites often complain about how the Jews control the world financial system, but I’m pretty sure that if the Jews all exited the finance industry, most of these anti-semites would start citing some other reason to hate Jews.
MikeDC
Dec 11 2019 at 2:27pm
Oh. Guess that explains why he went and murdered a bunch of politicians, lobbyists, and corporate bigwigs.
Maybe the lesson here is to understand that some quantity of people are always looking for a reason to do something evil.
Jon Murphy
Dec 11 2019 at 5:09pm
On the margin, it likely would. Of course, reducing US interventionism around the world would not reduce terrorism to zero, but it likely would reduce terrorism.
David Seltzer
Dec 12 2019 at 1:34pm
All of these comments are with merit. No matter the on station weapons policy, I suspect these shooters know they are are going to die when they open fire; so committed are they to their warped reasons. How then, does anyone or any group defend against a preemptive attack?
Comments are closed.