ROE in a war?

[strollingbones]

I understand that we must treat our enemies with certain standards...but rule of engagement in war?

Please read "Lone Survivor" the story of operation redwing....pay attention the the 4 seals debating and voting on killing 3 afg "farmers". The debate was ...kill them and risk being charged as murders or let them go and risk them telling you are there. The seals let them live and paid dearly for it.
All american's should read this book. It is very revealing about how we ask our military to do things with their hands tied by ROE's.

 

[steeliniraq]

I understand that we must treat our enemies with certain standards...but rule of engagement in war?

Please read "Lone Survivor" the story of operation redwing....pay attention the the 4 seals debating and voting on killing 3 afg "farmers". The debate was ...kill them and risk being charged as murders or let them go and risk them telling you are there. The seals let them live and paid dearly for it.
All american's should read this book. It is very revealing about how we ask our military to do things with their hands tied by ROE's.

I agree 100%. The problem is many Americans want to put everything in their understanding which is small. While I think most Americans should just keep their mouths shut on the subject of war because most wont fight I doubt you will find many on here that will actually say let the soldiers fight. Instead they will side with those who kill our soldiers and scream when one of them get killed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And who is it that screams the loudest about ROE and violations of it? Why the Liberals of course. They beat our government and our military over the head with it, even arguing that the ROE we do use is to prone to allow "murder" or "atrocities".

When the military report something about a mission or the combat zone, who is it that refuses to believe them and demands independent sources, including enemy input as to what "really" happened? Why it is the Liberals and the democrats of course.

Those Seals knew from previous incidents involving people like Murtha and several other Liberal Democrats that they ran a real risk of being charged with murder if they killed those farmers. They made a decision, not based on good intel or the battle field conditions they were in but on what some lawyer would claim later, incited by Liberal members of Congress.

However in the end the commander of that detachment should have aborted the mission. They could not kill the farmers and they could not let them go ( or rather they shouldn't have). The mission was done at that point. They probably would have gotten an ass chewing for calling off the mission, but they would either have still been alive or been given authority to kill the farmers. ( chance of that? Nil).

 

[Bootneck]

I understand that we must treat our enemies with certain standards...but rule of engagement in war?

Are you are advocating that ROE in war should not apply? If so, that is an option that can never be implemented.

There are well defined rules in war which are covered by international law and the Geneva Convention. They were put in place to lessen the suffering, atrocities and destruction of combat. A government would be in contravention of the law if it did not implement ROE. Furthermore, ROE protects combat troops by defining precisely what is legal and what is not. They know where the line is and they know the consequences if they cross it.

 

[strollingbones]

i am advocating nothing. I am simply saying that the ROE cost the greatest loss of american seals in history...operation redwing failed due to the seals not killing the enemy.
Why did they not kill the enemy...the ROE's. I am sorry when in doubt, take em out.
I would rather a 100 of them die than one us soldier. you read that right...if it had to be 1000 i could live with it...after all they are trying to kill us.

 

[editec]

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.

 

[Anguille]

However in the end the commander of that detachment should have aborted the mission. They could not kill the farmers and they could not let them go ( or rather they shouldn't have). The mission was done at that point. They probably would have gotten an ass chewing for calling off the mission, but they would either have still been alive or been given authority to kill the farmers. ( chance of that? Nil).

That's the first sensible thing I've ever heard you say. Except maybe that stuff about Jesus not being God and about mani being an artard.

 

[Anguille]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Except for the, we have won in Iraq in less time then any other insurgency ever, what exactly would be your point about "hearts and minds" again?

 

[editec]

Except for the, we have won in Iraq in less time then any other insurgency ever, what exactly would be your point about "hearts and minds" again?

Tell that the to 4000+ families who are grieving the loss of their loved ones.

The issue at hand is ROE problems that come of expecting military troops to act as policemen and diplomats in wars that are NOT wars of all out war, but rather wars of limited nature.

The war in Iraq was not one where we could NOT unleash the trrible swift sword of our military precisely because we could not slaughter the people with abandon as we were attempting to make them our allies.

 

[Mr. President]

At the same time ROE prevents us from shooting know IED makers because they are not armed at the time. On more then one occassion we have caught them later after multiple US and Iraqi military and police casualties. ROE are rules put in place by people who don't fight wars

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Tell that the to 4000+ families who are grieving the loss of their loved ones.

The issue at hand is ROE problems that come of expecting military troops to act as policemen and diplomats in wars that are NOT wars of all out war, but rather wars of limited nature.

The war in Iraq was not one where we could NOT unleash the trrible swift sword of our military precisely because we could not slaughter the people with abandon as we were attempting to make them our allies.

Ya 4000 dead, we lose that many in the same time frame to training accidents. You need to get some prospective. We have basically won a war of insurgency in 6 years when it normally takes 10 or more, we have done it with very small losses and we have FREED a country from a despot. We have rid the world of a growing threat, one proven to exist.

I am quite sure for each family that lost someone it was tramatic, but the cost has been so small that we lose that many in training. You keep trying to make it into some great evil. If we can not afford to lose 4000 dead in 6 years to defend ourselves, we might as well disband our military and be swallowed up by whom ever wants to take us over.

 

[editec]

At the same time ROE prevents us from shooting know IED makers because they are not armed at the time. On more then one occassion we have caught them later after multiple US and Iraqi military and police casualties. ROE are rules put in place by people who don't fight wars

Yeah, I understand that complaint.

We put our troops into impossible situations when we ask them to fight, but to take unwise risks just so we don't alienate the population.

We are asking our military to do something that militaries were not designed to do, aren't we?

We are asking them to be policeman and guards AND to fight a war against TERROR in the middle of populations they are supposed to protect, too.

Their complaints about ROE are entirely justified, in my opinion.

They complaints are identical to the complaints View Nam vets had about ROE in that police action, too.

The military is NOT a police force.

 

[editec]

Ya 4000 dead, we lose that many in the same time frame to training accidents. You need to get some prospective. We have basically won a war of insurgency in 6 years when it normally takes 10 or more, we have done it with very small losses and we have FREED a country from a despot. We have rid the world of a growing threat, one proven to exist.

I am quite sure for each family that lost someone it was tramatic, but the cost has been so small that we lose that many in training. You keep trying to make it into some great evil. If we can not afford to lose 4000 dead in 6 years to defend ourselves, we might as well disband our military and be swallowed up by whom ever wants to take us over.

so I take it that you believe that the ROE we imposed on our troops in Iraq is a GOOD THING, then?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

so I take it that you believe that the ROE we imposed on our troops in Iraq is a GOOD THING, then?

No. But your claims are not correct.

 

[Mr. President]

The military is not a police force but we can take on the role of policing a country. What people need to realize is that when an occupying army is being used to police a country we have to have leighway that normal police do not have because normal police do not handle war zones for a reason

 

[AllieBaba]

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.

 

[editec]

No. But your claims are not correct.

You're not making much sense, here.

If you don't agree with the ROE that the troops are dealing with in Iraq, then what are you objecting about as it relates to what I've written?

Do try to think you objections about what I write through, would you?

I'm tired of being embarassed for you.

 

[Anguille]

...

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 ...

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

 

[AllieBaba]

I know, and to think people like you think you should be telling soldiers what they can and can't do in a war zone.