Post by deovindice on May 28, 2007 10:10:40 GMT -5
Let us assume for a moment that the war in Iraq is a justifiable, winnable endeavor. Let us further assume that the conflict runneth over with interests of prime importance to the nation. Difficult, at best. A stretch, to be sure, but for the sake of the discussion........
There exist many parallels between the war in Iraqi and the Vietnam War. Some are identical and rock solid. Some are not. They will serve as a catalyst for debate for some time to come. However, there is one parallel that defies explanation. It should have taught us the most valuable of lessons to be learned in the execution of warfare, regardless of the debate surrounding any conflict that seeks to define the rights and wrongs of said.
Rules of Engagement.
It is widely accepted fact that the Rules of Engagement employed in Vietnam were a major cause of our defeat in that war. Rules that sought to justify and codify each and every engagement and to disavow and escape the irrefutable fact that in war, people get killed and things get blown up, oftentimes without obvious reason.
We see the exact same phenomenon in Iraq, even after realizing the devastating effects of such policy in Vietnam and after unending promises never to repeat such glaring mistakes.
"Retired U.S. Army Colonel David Hunt says while visiting Iraq recently, he observed rules of engagement that required seven separate steps before a soldier at a guard post could engage the enemy. The last step, he notes, states that if the enemy runs away, the soldier does not have to go after him."
A typical day in Iraq consists of patrols, both mounted and dismounted, and casualties caused by ambushes, but primarily by IEDs. The actual location and engagement of enemy positions occurs rarely.
In Vietnam, it was unlikely that an infantry patrol would locate and destroy an enemy position. The soldiers would have found.......a village, its population sullen and silent, the guerrilla fighters hiding, the guerrilla "fortifications" indistinguishable from the homes and shelters of the villagers. They might have drawn hostile fire; more likely they would have lost men to mines and booby traps, the exact location of which everyone in the village knew and no one would reveal.
Here's a recent example from Iraq:
"Let me tell you a little something about ROE (Rules of Engagement). In Baghdad thousands of people are moving around all the time. Many houses, all of them, have guns. On a general scale, none of them are planning any wrongdoing at all. But they don’t think that Americans can accomplish anything, either, because they know we can’t search at will, can’t shoot at will, can’t detain at will.
If you wish to stop a car approaching a checkpoint, you must first post a sign a long way down the road, if it is ignored, you must verbally warn them, and use a green laser to get the drivers attention. If still ignored, you must fire a warning shot with an M4, then a M240, then, finally the kill shot. If at any time the car turns away, all you can do is TRY to pursue it, never shoot at it. Technically, similar rules exist for dismounted operations, and that puts more soldiers at risk than you can possibly imagine. I’m not sure Johnny on the street has this information, but Muhammed in the mosque sure does.
I can’t even tell you how pissed it makes me to hear a JAG officer suck in breath as he tries to think real hard how to explain the murky depths of our ROE. A system that used to be a way of allowing soldiers to avoid hurting civilians by using certain weapon systems at certain times has once again degenerated into a complex “Cover Your Ass” legal trick for higher command."
I wish to hear no more of how honorable our mission in Iraq is. I wish to hear no more of "the positive things that are happening" there. It is mere bullwash of a rather distinctive quality.
To those who wish to disavow our Founders' admonitions pertaining to involving ourselves in such conflicts, who repeatedly offer that their conclusions are archaic, outdated, and have been superceded by the effects of technology on the world, you can no longer excuse the fallacy and wasteful criminality of this war that President Bush has foisted upon the American citizenry.
The shackles of "Rules of Engagement" that tie our soldiers' hands and waste their lives were magnanimously codified and their tragic consequences experienced in earnest a mere 4 decades ago. Many of those now in leadership roles are veterans of the quagmire of Vietnam. Thus, there exists a continuity that serves to debunk rationalizations of our failures in Iraq that stem from the ridiculous tactics, framed and limited by similarly ridiculous rules of engagement, that are employed there.
One last interesting note: The US military's Rules of Engagement are classified. The soldiers are expected to follow them. The enemy will discern them. Their classification only serves to keep the American public in the dark as to the ludicrousness of their existence.............still................again.............
All things considered, President Bush and the senior leadership of the military are guilty of reckless disregard for the lives of the troops under their command, and thus should be cashiered accordingly.
There exist many parallels between the war in Iraqi and the Vietnam War. Some are identical and rock solid. Some are not. They will serve as a catalyst for debate for some time to come. However, there is one parallel that defies explanation. It should have taught us the most valuable of lessons to be learned in the execution of warfare, regardless of the debate surrounding any conflict that seeks to define the rights and wrongs of said.
Rules of Engagement.
It is widely accepted fact that the Rules of Engagement employed in Vietnam were a major cause of our defeat in that war. Rules that sought to justify and codify each and every engagement and to disavow and escape the irrefutable fact that in war, people get killed and things get blown up, oftentimes without obvious reason.
We see the exact same phenomenon in Iraq, even after realizing the devastating effects of such policy in Vietnam and after unending promises never to repeat such glaring mistakes.
"Retired U.S. Army Colonel David Hunt says while visiting Iraq recently, he observed rules of engagement that required seven separate steps before a soldier at a guard post could engage the enemy. The last step, he notes, states that if the enemy runs away, the soldier does not have to go after him."
A typical day in Iraq consists of patrols, both mounted and dismounted, and casualties caused by ambushes, but primarily by IEDs. The actual location and engagement of enemy positions occurs rarely.
In Vietnam, it was unlikely that an infantry patrol would locate and destroy an enemy position. The soldiers would have found.......a village, its population sullen and silent, the guerrilla fighters hiding, the guerrilla "fortifications" indistinguishable from the homes and shelters of the villagers. They might have drawn hostile fire; more likely they would have lost men to mines and booby traps, the exact location of which everyone in the village knew and no one would reveal.
Here's a recent example from Iraq:
"Let me tell you a little something about ROE (Rules of Engagement). In Baghdad thousands of people are moving around all the time. Many houses, all of them, have guns. On a general scale, none of them are planning any wrongdoing at all. But they don’t think that Americans can accomplish anything, either, because they know we can’t search at will, can’t shoot at will, can’t detain at will.
If you wish to stop a car approaching a checkpoint, you must first post a sign a long way down the road, if it is ignored, you must verbally warn them, and use a green laser to get the drivers attention. If still ignored, you must fire a warning shot with an M4, then a M240, then, finally the kill shot. If at any time the car turns away, all you can do is TRY to pursue it, never shoot at it. Technically, similar rules exist for dismounted operations, and that puts more soldiers at risk than you can possibly imagine. I’m not sure Johnny on the street has this information, but Muhammed in the mosque sure does.
I can’t even tell you how pissed it makes me to hear a JAG officer suck in breath as he tries to think real hard how to explain the murky depths of our ROE. A system that used to be a way of allowing soldiers to avoid hurting civilians by using certain weapon systems at certain times has once again degenerated into a complex “Cover Your Ass” legal trick for higher command."
I wish to hear no more of how honorable our mission in Iraq is. I wish to hear no more of "the positive things that are happening" there. It is mere bullwash of a rather distinctive quality.
To those who wish to disavow our Founders' admonitions pertaining to involving ourselves in such conflicts, who repeatedly offer that their conclusions are archaic, outdated, and have been superceded by the effects of technology on the world, you can no longer excuse the fallacy and wasteful criminality of this war that President Bush has foisted upon the American citizenry.
The shackles of "Rules of Engagement" that tie our soldiers' hands and waste their lives were magnanimously codified and their tragic consequences experienced in earnest a mere 4 decades ago. Many of those now in leadership roles are veterans of the quagmire of Vietnam. Thus, there exists a continuity that serves to debunk rationalizations of our failures in Iraq that stem from the ridiculous tactics, framed and limited by similarly ridiculous rules of engagement, that are employed there.
One last interesting note: The US military's Rules of Engagement are classified. The soldiers are expected to follow them. The enemy will discern them. Their classification only serves to keep the American public in the dark as to the ludicrousness of their existence.............still................again.............
All things considered, President Bush and the senior leadership of the military are guilty of reckless disregard for the lives of the troops under their command, and thus should be cashiered accordingly.