perfidy

A little while back, my wife and her band were on a local morning talk show. Since their slot on the show was at 8:30, and I was still unemployed at the time, we decided to make a day of it in downtown DC. As we wandered toward the Mall, we (I) immediately noticed that there were military vehicles parked in the area between Air and Space and the National Gallery. Eager to look at the instruments of death lovingly crafted by our great nation’s scientists and engineers, the three of us headed toward the scene.

The soldiers were very friendly and informative, and let my son sit in the driver’s seat of a MRLS, and even press the firing button. Sadly, the missiles were not live and we were unable to destroy the Department of Education, located only a couple blocks downrange. Here’s a pic of young John looking warlike:

But the interesting part was when we went through the big tent. The various services, agencies, departments, bureaus and whatnot gathered for Public Service Appreciation day all had booths in which they could tout their contributions to the nation’s security, safety and (in the case of the Marines and Airborne) general stance of extreme lethality and kickassitude. The Marines had a display of the various weapons that they use in persecuting our enemies. There were mortars, squad automatic weapons and at the end of the line, two corporals in charge of explaining and exhibiting an M-16 and its baby brother the M-4.

Being the kind of guy that I am, I asked the two what they thought of the new XM-8, proposed as a replacement for the M-16. Corporal #1 exhibited the extreme conservatism for which military establishments are famed:

“We fear change.”

He went on to opine that the new gun looks like his son’s super-soaker, and no right thinking Marine would want to carry one, though the pansies in the Army can do whatever they want. (I’m paraphrasing, but that was pretty much the thrust of his comments.)

Corporal #2 was more eloquent, but also more favorably disposed to the new weapon. He said that he had actually fired the weapon in Ashkanistan (his word) and was very impressed by the weapon’s recoil system.

“You can squeeze off three rounds on full auto before the barrel even starts to rise. Close groups, easy to handle. The only problem is, three rounds of five-five-six won’t put a jihadi down. Maybe if we could use hollow points or a soft nose bullet, the stopping power would be better.”

I asked about the 6.8mm round that was also being considered.

“That might be an improvement. But small caliber rounds don't work against fanatics.”

A hundred years ago, Marines had a problem with another fanatical insurgency, the Huks in the newly acquired Philippines. We invented an entirely new and larger type of handgun, the M1911 .45 semi-automatic, just because we needed something that would drop a crazed fanatic when the small caliber handgun just wasn’t hacking it. Perhaps it’s time to do that again. Shoot-to-wound strategies might encumber a reasonable army, where the enemy will spend time and effort to care for wounded comrades. Against frankly suicidal Moslem fundamentalists, reverting to a less nuanced shoot-to-kill policy might be a good idea.