whitetrashmama
freedom-is-sacred
- Thread starter
- #21
It is true. The Rules of Engagement were changed in response to civilian casualties.
This isn't from Rush Limbaugh.
Lieberman: Rules of engagement protecting civilians hurt morale | The Raw Story
That article specifically says soldiers can engage when fired on.
I don't know what more Leibermann wants. A return to the free fire zones of Vietnam Nam?
Not going to happen.
Instead if bitching about the ROE, which is a reality of modern war, perhaps you guys should stop being so gang ho about us getting into these fucking messes.
It takes a close reading to see that the soldiers are not completely locked down. I posted with a question mark specifically because I did NOT take the Limbaugh story as 100% but it did seem plausible. This discussion is exactly what is needed, not to be "gungho" but to use common sense when we are in a war.
The question remains: what is actually going on at the front lines? Are these soldiers being held back from defending themselves? Obama clearly does NOT support security, look at the mess about Ambassador Stevens's horrible death.
Not only "what are the actual ROE?" but "How are they being applied?"
Are Obamian officers erring on the side of passivity in how they apply the ROE? Are soldiers being wrongly trained to hesitate when fired on?
Does the sight of the enemy combattant loading a launcher count as "NOT" fired on until after the round has landed on one of ours?
See, the devil is in the details.