ROE in a war?

[Anguille]

Yes innocents die but thats rarely from US small arms fire. We are accurate and know exactly who is the target and believe me even without the current ROE US soldiers would not go into the country with a kill them all mentality; it would be a kill who needs to be killed and stop making the army do investigations on terrorists before we can capture them.

You may be a clear headed perceptive soldier but not all are. I can't forget that awful incident a few years back when a wedding reception was bombed by mistake.

 

[strollingbones]

You may be a clear headed perceptive soldier but not all are. I can't forget that awful incident a few years back when a wedding reception was bombed by mistake.

i am more bothered by the intentional beheading of american soldiers and civilians...those were not mistakes, now were they. Since you have not read the book, you do not know he was saved by afg. too?

 

[strollingbones]

And to think that people like you qualify for a gun permit.

there is the off topic comment. you quoted and then that comment.

 

[Mr. President]

Right and I hear what you are saying but small arms fire is what the individual soldier is responsible for. Those incidents are extremely rare and almost always happen in intense combat situations. If ROE were less then the terrorists would take us more seriously because we would have the authority to neutralize the enemy without investigations and trials. As far as the bombings go honestly they just follow orders.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You may be a clear headed perceptive soldier but not all are. I can't forget that awful incident a few years back when a wedding reception was bombed by mistake.

You mean the one that was in the middle of the desert no where near anything? Or all the other supposed wedding receptions that no one ever proved were anything but terrorists and thugs gathered together planning their next attack?

You are aware of course that a "few" years ago every attack the Americans made on terror groups was suddenly a peaceful wedding assemble with no women present and all armed men with small and heavy arms?

 

[Anguille]

Right and I hear what you are saying but small arms fire is what the individual soldier is responsible for. Those incidents are extremely rare and almost always happen in intense combat situations. If ROE were less then the terrorists would take us more seriously because we would have the authority to neutralize the enemy without investigations and trials. As far as the bombings go honestly they just follow orders.

Thanks for the clarification. I had forgotten about the bombings being the decision of higher ups. I am glad to hear that these incidents with individual soldiers are extremely rare. Thanks for taking the time to explain things to someone who isn't actually there in your shoes and for giving your expert opinion. Food for thought!

 

[Anguille]

there is the off topic comment. you quoted and then that comment.

Please stay on topic. If you want to discuss my comments to Baba, start another thread.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Please stay on topic. If you want to discuss my comments to Baba, start another thread.

LOL, nice try to deflect, doesn't work, but hey maybe you can fool somebody.

 

[editec]

I heard an interview with the guy who wrote that book. It was an incredible interview. He's smart, articulate, has suffered great loss, and puts the blush to any POS who has said our military are incompetent buffoons.

There are things about war that cannot be regulated. For example, he said that when you walked down the street, you could TELL who the terrorists were by the way they looked at you. I believe him, but you know about how well that goes over with the left.

By your extremely limited understanding of that the word "left" means, I'm of the left, and despite that fact, I understand EXACTLY what that soldier was trying to say.

 

[Anguille]

LOL, nice try to deflect, doesn't work, but hey maybe you can fool somebody.

such a doofus!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

such a doofus!

I agree, you are.

 

[OohRah Mama]

When we send our military to war, they damn sure need to have wide-open ROE. It's patently ridiculous to tell our Marines "Hey, don't shoot at the Hadjis till they pick one of you off from the mosque." What BS. We can trust the majority of our warriors & COs to refrain from atrocities, for crying out loud.
Don't send the dogs in to rip throats and step on their chains after you've yelled "Sic 'em".

That said, there's a difference between ROE and governmental sanctioning/encouraging of torture as a policy. The current Administration's glib disdain for Constitutional rights and Habeas Corpus as well is horrifying.

And I still cannot understand how a man who was tortured himself & subsequently signed a false confession could possibly do a 180 and say Ohhh, torture's okelydokelydo.

Jeebus.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

When we are involved in a war of survivaal, instead of a war of imperialism, the ROE are significantly different, aren't they?...

When did empires ever trifle with ROE?

ROE is the trademark of liberators not empires.

At least try to be internally coherent.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Furthermore, ROE protects combat troops by defining precisely what is legal and what is not.

That's what the Libs are pedaling. You let me know when we fight a somebody that follows the Geneva Convention. I ain't seen it in my lifetime.

The only way that statement is right is if you are saying it protects them from prosecution.

 

[Tech_Esq]

When we are involved in a war of survivaal, instead of a war of imperialism, the ROE are significantly different, aren't they?

Not that that matters much to the boots on the ground, of course.

From the perspective of the boots on the ground, every war is the same, so one can see how ROE is a pain their asses.

What we do is send men into harms way and then expect them carry out foreign policies which no army does well.

You cannot simutaniously kill the eneny and win the hearts and minds of the people.

This is lesson we should have learned in Viet Nam, which is EXACTLY why many of us so-called liberals complained that the war in Iraq was going to be a real bitch for our troops.

But you sunshine patriots were so busy plastering your SUVs with "support our Troops" bumper stickers few of you took the time to THINK THINGS THROUGH, did you?

If you are, or were, sporting on of those idiotic Support our Troops bumber stickers then YOU are the problem folks... not the liberals who warmed you about this inevitable problem in advance.

You've not been reading your von Clauswitz. I'm very disappointed. "War is the continuation of politics by other means."

"Hearts and minds" is a lunatic policy put forward by lunatics.

You win people over by making them safe in their daily life so they can do what they do without getting killed doing it. You provide that and don't get too much in their way and maybe figure out how they can have a job, and you win.

You can give them all the hospitals and schools and candy bars you want, but if their village gets raped and pillaged by the enemy every other day, you will lose. That was the lesson of Vietnam, concerning hearts and minds.

 

[strollingbones]

That's what the Libs are pedaling. You let me know when we fight a somebody that follows the Geneva Convention. I ain't seen it in my lifetime.

The only way that statement is right is if you are saying it protects them from prosecution.

excuse me...i am the thread starter and a liberal. Perhaps addressing the issue of reo's and not going apeshit on party would do the most good.

 

[Tech_Esq]

That said, there's a difference between ROE and governmental sanctioning/encouraging of torture as a policy. The current Administration's glib disdain for Constitutional rights and Habeas Corpus as well is horrifying.

I think they were trying to take a more humane approach than the alternative. I say they got it wrong. We should accord the people we capture on the battlefield the same rights as soldiers under the Geneva Conventions. The Administration should come out and announce that we no longer see these combatants as "terrorists" but see them and will treat them as soldiers.

Therefore we will not try any of them as criminal. They will be placed in a humane prison camp for the duration of the conflict. They will have no right to appeal and the case law on the matter is clear. No more ambiguity, no more tribunals.

Hmmm....hope we can figure out when the conflict is over.

 

[Tech_Esq]

excuse me...i am the thread starter and a liberal. Perhaps addressing the issue of reo's and not going apeshit on party would do the most good.

I didn't address party Mr. ThreadStarter, let alone go "apeshit" on it. You can be a lib Repub or a lib Dem.

I did address ROEs as was part of that poster's comment. That's pretty much how these threads go. Someone comments then someone else debates some aspect of the previous poster's comment.

The part I addressed was whether adhering to ROEs actually has the effect of "protecting" the combatant. My point is, since it wasn't plain at least to you, that when the debate rages on this issue in Congress, the Dems (now I'm talking party) like to say, that adhering to the rules of (engagement, torture you fill in the blank) makes our soldiers safer because then the other side won't break the rules either.

I was pointing out that while that thought is nice, it's naive. We fought in VietNam, did they adhere to the Convention or any ROE? No. Iraq? Nope. Korea? Nope. The terrorists? Nope.

So, exactly where is this benefit and when will our soldiers be helped by this? When we fight France?

 

[Larkinn]

That's what the Libs are pedaling. You let me know when we fight a somebody that follows the Geneva Convention. I ain't seen it in my lifetime.

The only way that statement is right is if you are saying it protects them from prosecution.

The worse you treat the population, the more of them will want to kill you.

You win people over by making them safe in their daily life so they can do what they do without getting killed doing it. You provide that and don't get too much in their way and maybe figure out how they can have a job, and you win.

You can give them all the hospitals and schools and candy bars you want, but if their village gets raped and pillaged by the enemy every other day, you will lose. That was the lesson of Vietnam, concerning hearts and minds.

Apparently you don't know shit about the lessons of Iraq. Making them "safe in their daily life" requires following the RoE and not killing civilians because you think they "might pose a threat".

Part of why Iraq is more stable now is because AQ was killing indiscriminately. People had sympathy for AQ until they started doing shit that normal everyday Iraqis had problems with. It got a LOT easier for American forces at that time.

 

[strollingbones]

By your extremely limited understanding of that the word "left" means, I'm of the left, and despite that fact, I understand EXACTLY what that soldier was trying to say.

the book is very revealing....being the lone survivor has been a great burden to the man.