Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know I sound ruthless and cold, but I have also spent 13 months under regular hostile fire and utterly ridiculous ROE's.
A Soldier/Marine is trained/honed to have instant reflex/responses to threats, then sent to where the threats are real and constant, and also told their initial responses/reflexes are disallowed; they must play diplomat instead.
It's stupid, it's dangerous, and it's calculated to generate uncounted instances of 'undesirable', 'disallowed' reflex actions that are then viewed as somehow inappropriate. It's a refined recipe for repeated clusterf*cks.
It's not the shame that these behaviors exist, it's the miracle that they are so few. The miracle is in how many of our servicemen can actually carry out their commands in the face of their inherently blatant schitzophrenic contradiction.
It is, in and or itself, purely neurotic. It can, in and of itself, create mental disconnects/psychotic breaks within literally thousands of servicemen's minds, that we then blithely call PTSD, attribute to the enemy, and brand, label, and ostracize the victims. We treat them with pity and pharmaceuticals, and wash our hands of them.
Of all the things we do to our combat Veterans, it is the most insidiously criminal act. I speak of each and every facet of this discussion from first hand experience.
Soldiers are not diplomats, Soldiering is what is supposed to happen when diplomacy fails. Throwing soldiers into a failed diplomacy and burdening them with the jobs of the failed diplomats is flatly criminal.
I'm suprised those soldiers haven't turned on their masters, a dog would have done so long ago.
Petraeus is very, very good at what he does. The fact that it's the wrong thing has very little to do with him. When God gives you lemons, you make lemonade. When the National Command Authority orders you to make the impossible happen, you get folks like Petraeus. Like Tic-Tac-Toe, the only winning move is not to play.
When a soldier confronts a local and the local knows in his bones that soldier is not allowed to shoot him under any but the most unlikely circumstances, a relationship of mutual contempt soon follows. Any strategist who deliberately creates this relationship is a solid boneheaded moron. That's who we have concocting our strategies at present, and for quite some time since it was any different, probably well back before my time. When somebody tells you to do something illogical, the word 'why' needs to be an allowable response. It clearly isn't at this time.
In such an atmosphere, no military strategy can be effective. It wasn't in WWII, that's why we won; it isn't now, that's why we can't win.
Greg </div></div>
It is interesting that you mention this!
I just returned from Iraq and had a challenging time performing my duty's of advising, training the Iraqi Army. It was difficult to get what I needed or to get the Iraqi's to do what I needed but with a little bit of persuasion, selling them on the ideas I was able for the most part to get things done (I think I'm going to be a used care salesman
.
Is it harder to get things done when you can't shove a muzzle in someones face? Damn skippy it is.
We aren't fighting the Iraqi's now, and we aren't fighting the Afghani's we are fighting insurgents. Z is on the money in this area but I also agree with you! If we are not killing and are going to do a half ass job of hunting down the enemy and killing them then that area is no longer the place for the warfighter!! We talk about the warrior mentality but we do not allow our soldiers to be it.
