The Insanity of the U.S. Military's Rules of Engagement

[ReillyT]

Sorry. I realize even my last response to you was snippy. I must just be in a bad mood. Anyway, I think we agree about the US RoE.

 

[dilloduck]

Are you keeping track of the thread at all? Who ever said that the US RoE allowed for killing innocents where there are no military targets?

The US RoE (if the initial link is correct) prohibit killing innocents, even if their continued existence might jeopardize the mission (excluding bombings, that is). I agree with such rules. You were the one to bring in AQ and OBL, in posts 4 and 8. [Note where I point out this is random in post 5]. I don't see why they have anything to do with the question.

Yes, our rules of warfare are different than AQs. I am glad that we both agree this should be the case.

Since we are talking about the US RoE vis-a vis non-combatants, I really don't think reminding everyone what the enemies' RoE is is really all that random. How do you feel about Al-Qaeda's RoE anyway because their choice of terrorist tactics is at the very heart of this war.

 

[ReillyT]

Since we are talking about the US RoE vis-a vis non-combatants, I really don't think reminding everyone what the enemies' RoE is is really all that random. How do you feel about Al-Qaeda's RoE anyway because their choice of terrorist tactics is at the very heart of this war.

Of course I disagree with AQ's tactics vis-a-vis civilians. To the extent that their tactics are at the heart of the war, this only serves to emphasize why our tactics must remain different.

 

[dilloduck]

Of course I disagree with AQ's tactics vis-a-vis civilians. To the extent that their tactics are at the heart of the war, this only serves to emphasize why our tactics must remain different.

I'm constantly amazed that we are going to examine every bullet fired by an American yet watch the enemy massacre civilians daily without batting an eyelash. I would think even the staunchest liberal would be able to muster up a " hey you assholes--stop it".

 

[ReillyT]

I'm constantly amazed that we are going to examine every bullet fired by an American yet watch the enemy massacre civilians daily without batting an eyelash. I would think even the staunchest liberal would be able to muster up a " hey you assholes--stop it".

Well, we do a little more right now than bat an eyelash. We try to kill them, and occasionally invade another country to do so.

We pay attention to what our own soldiers do because it is in our name, we can control it, and we don't want to commit murder. I'm okay with that.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Maybe it is just me, but I am squarely against murdering innocents when it can be avoided.

Were the goatherds innocent? Was it not they who willingly informed the Taliban where the Americans were, resulting in the death of all but one of the Seals? I would say that, by their actions, they participated in war against the Americans.

The article makes it clear these Navy seals were carrying out a mission behind enemy lines. They knew if they let the goatherds live, they would be putting their own lives in great danger, not to mention their mission. There was a war going on, and the goatherds chose to side with the Taliban and alert them to the whereabouts of the Americans. Innocent? I would say not.

 

[ReillyT]

Were the goatherds innocent? Was it not they who willingly informed the Taliban where the Americans were, resulting in the death of all but one of the Seals? I would say that, by their actions, they participated in war against the Americans.

The article makes it clear these Navy seals were carrying out a mission behind enemy lines. They knew if they let the goatherds live, they would be putting their own lives in great danger, not to mention their mission. There was a war going on, and the goatherds chose to side with the Taliban and alert them to the whereabouts of the Americans. Innocent? I would say not.

Well, actually, at the time the soldiers met the goatherds, they only suspected that they might tell the Taliban. Certainly, the illiterate goatherders hadn't done anything at that time. So yes, at that time, they were innocent civilians. To kill them at that point would have been to murder them unprovoked.

Subsequent events do not change that fact.

 

[Adam's Apple]

There is a reason that the US was attacked.... It would behoove us to consider why it was us and not others.

If you can believe what the terrorists say, it is because America is the Great Satan, a powerful infidel nation affecting the whole world with its evil culture, that believes otherwise than they do that Israel has a right to exist.

 

[ReillyT]

Was it not they who willingly informed the Taliban where the Americans were, resulting in the death of all but one of the Seals? I would say that, by their actions, they participated in war against the Americans.

Actually, we don't know that they informed anyone. We merely suspect. But what if one of them was the informer, and two were not. Then you, even analyzing after the fact, you have murdered two innocents.

Also, don't pretend that three illiterate Afghan goatherders are America's enemies. Even if they did inform, it wasn't part of a great Afghan conspiracy to kill Americans. Perhaps some Taliban bigwig capable of killing your family has politely asked you to let him know if you see any strangers in town. What do you? Do you protect America (which you know almost nothing about) at the expense of your family?

 

[ReillyT]

If you can believe what the terrorists say, it is because America is the Great Satan, a powerful infidel nation affecting the whole world with its evil culture, that believes otherwise than they do that Israel has a right to exist.

Well, analyzing it to that extent won't yield all that much. Let's say we dig a little deeper. Let's play a game. Based solely on your statement above, now try to think of some more information about their attitudes that you might want to know in order to prevent the recruitment of future terrorists. Come on? You can do it. I promise to walk with you ever step of the way.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Well, actually, at the time the soldiers met the goatherds, they only suspected that they might tell the Taliban. Certainly, the illiterate goatherders hadn't done anything at that time. So yes, at that time, they were innocent civilians. To kill them at that point would have been to murder them unprovoked.

Subsequent events do not change that fact.

I beg to differ. The actions by the goatherds in informing the Taliban tell a different story than what you present. The Seals were right in their assumptions about them.

 

[ReillyT]

I beg to differ. The actions by the goatherds in informing the Taliban tell a different story than what you present. The Seals were right in their assumptions about them.

Yykkkeess.

Yes, it turns out that the seals may have been right in their assumptions. It is nice that we can say that now. Unfortunately, the seals didn't know that to be the case at the time. How hard is this to comprehend? You don't murder people on relatively thinly grounded suspicion.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Well, analyzing it to that extent won't yield all that much. Let's say we dig a little deeper.

O.K., Reilly, just disregard what the terrorists themselves say. Give us the complex spiel that the libs have come up with as to why radical Islam is after the U.S. And be sure to enlighten us with something that we haven't heard a million times over these past six/seven years in the MSM. I myself prefer to listen to what the terrorists have to say and base my judgments based on that, but to each his own.

 

[Adam's Apple]

You don't murder people on relatively thinly grounded suspicion.

Under ordinary circumstances, you are quite right about that. But did you forget that there was a war going on? And I would challenge your description as a "relatively thinly grounded suspicion." Did not the Seals think that if they let these goatherds go, they would be committing suicide? Seems to me like they had summed the situation up accurately before it ever happened.

 

[ReillyT]

If you can believe what the terrorists say, it is because America is the Great Satan, a powerful infidel nation affecting the whole world with its evil culture, that believes otherwise than they do that Israel has a right to exist.

O.K., Reilly, just disregard what the terrorists themselves say. Give us the complex spiel that the libs have come up with as to why radical Islam is after the U.S. And be sure to enlighten us with something that we haven't heard a million times over these past six/seven years in the MSM. I myself prefer to listen to what the terrorists have to say and base my judgments based on that, but to each his own.

Okay, I can see you are having difficulties. Let me help you.

Why does it help to look beyond what the terrorists say so that we can understand them?

Let us take statement 1: America is the Great Satan

Accepting that some terrorists believe this, does it in any way help us to understand them if we take this statement at face value? Not too much.

Here is a probing question: why do they think America is the Great Satan?

Why is this question important? I will give you a couple of reasons.

1. Perhaps we are doing things that they dislike, but which are not that important to us. These things we can easily change, and therefore reducing negative feelings to the US, and hamper terrorist recruitment efforts.

2. Perhaps there are things that we are doing or saying that young Arab men don't really understand. Perhaps that is cultural. Maybe if we explained our actions better, there would be less hostility.

3. Perhaps we are just losing young arab men to inaccurate propaganda. Wow, it would be nice to know if this is the case. Then we can tailor our message to refute this propaganda and make it harder for terrorists to recruit.

Just a couple of thoughts off the top of my head. You see how it is possible to delve deeper into such a complex and nuanced statement as "America is the Great Satan?" Do you see how that might be helpful?

I'll keep working with you because I think you can grasp this stuff.

 

[ReillyT]

Under ordinary circumstances, you are quite right about that. But did you forget that there was a war going on?

Damn it! You're right. I forgot there was a war. Rookie mistake.

And I would challenge your description as a "relatively thinly grounded suspicion."

How was the suspicion not thinly grounded? It had nothing to do with the goatherders themselves. It didn't rely on any individual-specific knowledge. It was purely a supposition based on goatherders in general. That isn't exactly the world's strongest evidence.

Did not the Seals think that if they let these goatherds go, they would be committing suicide? Seems to me like they had summed the situation up accurately before it ever happened.

The fact that the seals may have been right in hindsight does not mean that they had any strong evidence of anything. Under your theory, we should just imprison suspicious looking people first, and as long as some day we find out that they deserved it, everything is just dandy.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I'll keep working with you because I think you can grasp this stuff.

That is so very thoughtful and kind of you! I will look forward with great anticipation to being tutored by one of the "intellectual elites".

 

[ReillyT]

That is so very thoughtful and kind of you! I will look forward with great anticipation to being tutored by one of the "intellectual elites".

Don't mention it. I feel it is my duty to help educate those (such as yourself) who have previously been denied a quality education. Just remember to call me "Sir" in the future.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, actually, at the time the soldiers met the goatherds, they only suspected that they might tell the Taliban. Certainly, the illiterate goatherders hadn't done anything at that time. So yes, at that time, they were innocent civilians. To kill them at that point would have been to murder them unprovoked.

Subsequent events do not change that fact.

Ahh yes, interesting logic indeed. Faulty as hell but interesting. Now the truth is I would have had trouble killing the goatherders myself, BUT in the end the decision NOT to incapacitate them was the wrong decision and the fault of the leader That Officer caused the mission to fail and worse, he cost the lives of his entire team save one.

Similar logic would be " That Bartender had no idea that the drunk would drive and kill all those people, he was just sitting in a bar drinking, after all"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually, we don't know that they informed anyone. We merely suspect. But what if one of them was the informer, and two were not. Then you, even analyzing after the fact, you have murdered two innocents.

Also, don't pretend that three illiterate Afghan goatherders are America's enemies. Even if they did inform, it wasn't part of a great Afghan conspiracy to kill Americans. Perhaps some Taliban bigwig capable of killing your family has politely asked you to let him know if you see any strangers in town. What do you? Do you protect America (which you know almost nothing about) at the expense of your family?

The Officer in charge of the team made a poor decision. If the ROE tied his hands then it too was wrong.