Rules of Engagement Revisited

[cobra de capell]

Rules of Engagement Revisited

September 23, 2009


Active duty military personnel, veterans and retirees alike all expressed their outrage and distain for the reported Rules of Engagement (ROE) that resulted in loss of life to four United States Marines and nine of their Afghan army allies. In a Taliban initiated ambush the insurgents out-gunned the joint military unit and pinned it to indefensible ground. The NATO advised Afghan force was denied artillery support and did not receive close air support for more than one hour after coming under attack. By that time 13 lives had been forfeited because of a politically motivated ROE that always favors the insurgents.

Why was artillery support refused? Why were the helicopter gun ships needed for close air support late? Why did more Americans die? Many feel it is due to the always politically orients Rules of Engagement, a war fighting practice that is only rarely understood by the general public, and is seldom clarified or accepted by members of the military community.

One person voicing such an opinion is retired Marine Corps Major Frank Stolz. This author – and authority on weapons of mass destruction – points out that the ROE has been a very controversial issue since before World War II. He explains, “The original rules were formulated through the League of Nations (1929 – 1946) and were mainly written and approved by diplomats, lawyers, peace advocates and many others appalled by the slaughter of millions in World War I.” The actions of that war, according to Stolz, “included the use of poison gases and the destruction of entire cities through artillery, naval gunfire bombardments and for the first time ever, aerial bombardment, often times when the cities were still filled with non combatant civilians.”


Snip.......http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/...9/09232009.htm
_____

By that time 13 lives had been forfeited because of a politically motivated ROE that always favors the insurgents.

Shades of Mogadishu. Either let the troops fight back and win, or suck up defeat and pull out. I am so damn sick of half-measures in war. These needlessly get a lot of troops killed when they should be given the green light to stomp the enemy’s guts out.

[Excaliber]

Spelling? Check. Excellent punctuation? Check. Following Cobra Bill's lead with a perfect cut and paste? Check.



ROE, tough call on how to proceed. Body count's don't determine final victory.

[Jamo]

...except that CdC properly gave credit to the source. Mucho biggo difference-o.

[Excaliber]

AH!!! I do stand corrected, that is a big difference!

[cobra de capell]

Hopefully, a lesson learned.

[Excaliber]

...probably not...

[Fordzilla]

http://www.military.com/news/article...=1186032325324

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

...probably not...

VRM...you are hereby released from being bound with CdC.

Ernie...you and CdC are now joined at the hip. He goes...you go. You go...he goes.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Jamo

VRM...you are hereby released from being bound with CdC.

Ernie...you and CdC are now joined at the hip. He goes...you go. You go...he goes.

Good - I'd hate to get booted for a copy/paste of someone elses work.

[cobra de capell]

Post that you are a genius one more time and you are out of here.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Jamo

VRM...you are hereby released from being bound with CdC.

Ernie...you and CdC are now joined at the hip. He goes...you go. You go...he goes.

A request - could you join me with someone that's not tired, fussy, confused, bumbling, clueless, arrogant, short, bald, pudgy and angry all the time? It will provide a better chance to survive, at least through the Obama years.