Posted on 06/20/2013 5:47:28 AM PDT by kimtom
Good Strategy, Bad Tactics: Ethical Considerations in ROE for Counter-Insurgency Warfare (original title)
In recent times, in many countries around the globe, military forces have had to come to grips with the difficulties of waging a counter-insurgency war; battling an elusive enemy in a task made all the more difficult by the fact that these insurgent forces commonly utilise tactics that appear (at the very least) to violate all the accepted rules of warfare. Given how common such a situation is in the world today, it seems to me that it is extremely important for military and political leaders to really understand what it is that they are doing when they engage in counter-insurgency warfare, and in particular for such leaders to understand what would count as winning such a war, and how this might be achieved. My aim in this paper is to explore various aspects of the fighting of both traditional and counter-insurgency wars, in order to better understand the similarities and differences between them, and to draw some conclusions about the sorts of strategies and tactics that ought to be employed by those engaged in counter-insurgency wars if they wish to ultimately achieve victory. In particular I wish to examine how the overall strategy that is being implemented in a particular counter-insurgency war finds its expression in the rules of engagement (ROE) given to the personnel in the front lines of the conflict.
There is no universally accepted definition of insurgency......
(Excerpt) Read more at isme.tamu.edu ...
Will there be ROE for internal conflict? (patriots)
Will the UN force US to abide by LOAC against it own populace?
3 2 1
We need to return at least to the ROE in effect during World War II. Since that time, our won - loss record has been pretty abysmal and it all goes back to when we surrendered our sovereignty to "International Courts" run by leftists that threaten war crimes tribunals.
If I were in charge, my ROE would be:
Kill 'em all and let GOD sort 'em out!
“..Kill ‘em all and let GOD sort ‘em out! ..”
You’d get along with G. Patton, I believe... :)
the problem with ROE is they don’t work when only implemented by one side.
I have no problem with both sides in a conflict coming together and deciding what should or should not be acceptable.
BUT, when once side say ANYTHING is acceptable, they will take no prisoners, ect... then those rules should apply to BOTH sides.
Americans have been brought up since WW2 watching and or reading to many cartoons where the “good guys” always follow the good guy code and the bad guys get to do whatever they want.
In my opinion it is this more than anything which has hampered our war efforts since WW2.
There is no universally accepted definition of insurgency......
Illegal aliens ARE INSURGENTS...........
Exactly.
When the hands of only one side are tied by excessively restrictive ROEs, then victory for that side is unattainable.
I remember back in 2007 when the dems were chiding Bush about Iraq, blathering about how it’d gone on longer than America’s involvement in WWII. The piece that was oh-so-conveniently omitted was the rather important fact the ROEs were quite different in WWII. Carpet bombing, cave flushing, and most certainly first-use of nukes would all be a no-go nowadays.
Correct! The community organizer and the 'Beast have been so used to dictating that apparently they think they speak for both sides.
Worse than that... they're invaders representing the hegemony of a foreign country. Mexico wants the American Southwest at a minimum, and will take the whole landmass in time if it can. Of course, the muslims will have something to say about that in a few decades.
With the US military on the side of al Qaeda under
the undocumented Indonesian-by-Fraud pRes_ _ent,
“win” has a wide range of meanings.
Because we won’t pick out our most obnoxious enemy in the region, wipe them completely out, then point to the smoking hole in the ground and ask the remaining factions “Do you know we are? Do you want us to do that again?”
This is very simple to fix.
If you are combatant and you are not in a recognizable uniform that differentiates you from the general populace, you are an illegal combatant, a spy, a saboteur, or a criminal. In a legally declared war, in such a status, a legitimately recognizable force can summarily try and execute you.
There, I solved it. Formally declare war in Congress and go back to the tactics we used to win World War II.
Wow!!!
Interesting, he was reputed to have ; “..remarked that had the U.S. lost the war, he fully expected to be tried for war crimes...”
I think many US generals from CW to present could say that...what is war about anyway...(sarc)?????
“..when once side say ANYTHING is acceptable, they will take no prisoners, ect... then those rules should apply to BOTH sides..”
excellent point!!!!
I would agree in principle, but we’d be labeled “barbarians”
(which we are.....(Anglo-Saxon)
16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:
18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God.
Why US Military can’t win... because Mordor won’t let them....”
Destroy the Ring
war in Congress ...”
That is probably why it isn’t done.....
I was thinking "well written, then this...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.