Debate in Central Texas continues over arming soldiers at military sites

While the Defense Department on Wednesday came out against arming "all" service members at U.S. military installations, the debate is still heating up in Central Texas, with federal lawmakers getting involved.
"We do not support arming all military personnel for a variety of reasons," Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters at the Pentagon. "(There are) safety concerns, the prohibitive cost for use-of-force and weapons training, qualification costs as well as compliance with multiple weapons-training laws."
However, Defense Secretary Ash Carter is awaiting recommendations from the five military services on fortifying their recruiting centers and domestic bases following the July 15 assault that left six people dead — four Marines, a Navy corpsman and the shooter, Kuwait-born Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez — at a naval reserve center in Chattanooga, Tenn.
Understand concerns
Retired Lt. Gen. Pete Taylor, a former III Corps and Fort Hood commander who lives in the Killeen-Fort Hood area, said any decision to arm soldiers outside of a combat situation should not be taken lightly.
"While I would obviously defer to current commanders who have the responsibility and the obligation to deal with threats facing their soldiers, I clearly understand the concerns raised by the DOD spokesman and would agree that any potential decision to arm all military personnel outside a combat situation should be carefully studied prior to implementation," Taylor said in an email to the Herald on Thursday.
"At the same time, I am confident that our military leaders at all levels are committed in this new environment to assuring the safety of their personnel and their families and will take the appropriate actions depending on the situation they face."
On the Killeen Daily Herald's Facebook page Thursday, reactions were mixed on whether to arm soldiers on post.
"If everyone was armed on post, then there would be a whole lot more shootings," according to a post from Bruce Haywood. "Fort Hood just had a couple of years ago a soldier killing soldiers on Fort Hood 'cause he was pissed over his leave not being approved. It could and probably be a lot worse."
He was referring to a shooting on post in April 2014, that left four people dead, including the shooter, Spc. Ivan Lopez.
Others, such as Heather Brock, posted: "Why are we allowing them to go overseas to protect and defend us only to come back to be at risk of being unable to protect themselves? Why are we not protecting them? Why are we not taking the initiative to ensure they are able to come home to a safe environment one that we hold to them to protect?"
New legislation
Currently, soldiers are not allowed to carry concealed firearms on military installations; however, a bipartisan group of lawmakers advanced legislation to remove at least some of the limits imposed on service members in the United States under Presidents George H.W. Bush, a Republican, and Bill Clinton, a Democrat, in the 1990s.
Sen. Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican, introduced a bill Thursday that would repeal partial prohibitions on military personnel carrying firearms at domestic installations.
"Our men and women in uniform are banned from exercising this constitutional right when fulfilling their duties on American soil," Moran said. "This infringement on the constitutional rights of our service members has caused American military installations and DOD sites to become increasingly vulnerable to those who wish to do harm."
However, those who say we should "arm them all" are naive and "playing politics," said retired Lt. Gen. Dave Palmer, a former division commander who lives in Belton.
Blindly allowing or handing out a firearm to every soldier on post could have terrible consequences, he said.
"The world is very different now than when the laws (limiting guns on post) were passed," Palmer said. "That doesn't mean we need to get hysterical about it and do something stupid."
Right approach
Palmer said the Defense Department's approach of awaiting recommendations from the five military branches is the right approach. Further, there are multiple ways of beefing up security on post, including adding more military police or allowing certain individuals to carry a firearm.
Palmer agreed with what Gen. Mark Milley, a former III Corps and Fort Hood commander, told members of Congress earlier this week.
At his Senate confirmation hearing to become Army chief of staff, Milley said the Pentagon should weigh arming recruiters and other personnel.
"I think under certain conditions, both on military bases and in outstations, we should seriously consider it, and under certain conditions, I think it's appropriate," Milley told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.
U.S. Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock, whose district includes Fort Hood, said he and "69 of my colleagues" in the House sent the secretary of defense a letter this week requesting he allow commanders at military facilities to authorize certain personnel to carry personal firearms.
"There have been far too many tragedies in recent years that may have been prevented if our soldiers had been armed," Carter said.
Fellow Congressman Roger Williams, R-Austin, who also represents Fort Hood, said in statement he will consider legislation that will arm soldiers on post.
"Our nation's brave men and women are continuously under threat from Islamist extremists and the deranged, and the attacks at Fort Hood and the Washington Navy Yard and the most recent murders in Chattanooga are proof that the threats are real," said Williams. "At the end of the day we need to make sure our service members can protect themselves. Until I see a better plan than what we have now I will consider supporting legislative efforts to arm soldiers on post."
Meanwhile, soldiers at the Army recruiting station in Harker Heights were told by their command in Dallas to keep alert. In some parts of the country, armed citizens are standing guard outside of recruiting stations.