Debates About War Protocol Hamstring our Defense Efforts

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly wants a mercenary army to supply the ground forces in the latest installment of the war on terror. And it seems the smart set can't stop laughing. The Washington Post's media blogger, Erik Wemple, called it an "insane" idea and suggested that allowing O'Reilly to peddle the idea on "CBS This Morning" was an "insane departure from that show's standard." The whole spectacle, Wemple opined, proved that O'Reilly will "never be much of a thought leader in policy circles."

It's true that on the left and the right, O'Reilly's idea is being scorned fairly mercilessly. That's understandable on the left. Arguably the most hated host at the most hated news network (in large part because both are so successful), O'Reilly could come out in support of the law of gravity and the usual suspects would run the headline, "Fox Host Supports Law Requiring Babies and Puppies to Fall from Great Height When Dropped."

And while I have nothing but respect for both my Fox News colleague Charles Krauthammer and Naval War College professor Tom Nichols -- both of whom have rejected O'Reilly's idea with much gusto -- I wish people would give it a bit more thought.

Ever since 9/11, Americans have been debating the limits of war, the rules of war, the purpose of war, even the definition of war. Weeks after it had already started bombing the Islamic State, the Obama administration was still struggling with whether or not we should call a sustained military assault "war."

Brutal hammer-and-tongs politics have made that conversation difficult enough. But what has made things all the more frustrating is that while we debate a thousand points of view internally, it is still a one-sided conversation. That's because, for our enemies, there's nothing to debate. They know exactly what they mean by war, and they aren't remotely confused about whom they're at war with or what the rules of engagement are. That's because there are no rules for them, save those they divine from Allah. Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and their various imitators are not signatories to any international treaty, they observe none of the rules of war, and they have contempt for the opinions of what is called the international community. Islamic terrorists deliberately slaughter civilians, even proudly carving them up on camera. But on our end, we afford them rights "consistent" with the Geneva Conventions.

Now, let me say that, as misguided as this is, it speaks well of America's intentions. We are better than our enemies, and I don't think we should stoop to their level. But it also strikes me as undeniable that America is politically, diplomatically, psychologically and legally hamstrung.

Let's start with the notion that we are at war with "terror." That convenient euphemism allows us to avoid the awkward truth that we are at war with Muslim fanatics, as Barack Obama almost admitted before the U.N. this week, breaking with his previous claim that the Islamic State isn't even Islamic.

The declaration that we will not have boots on the ground is not only a lie -- we already do -- it's a statement of political necessity, not military necessity. Forging a Potemkin coalition may be politically and diplomatically pleasing, but it's militarily insignificant. If we really need the assistance of the UAE's air force, Americans should demand a refund on the defense budget.

Then there's the army of Dickensian asses in the room: the lawyers. As the Wall Street Journal's Dan Henninger noted last week, the halls of power echo not so much with the talk of war but with the language of lawyers. The Department of Defense, which employs 10,000 lawyers, must debate the finer legalisms when crafting war plans. The supposedly moderate Free Syrian Army must first be "vetted" like an applicant for a junior partnership at a law firm.

Alas, the Pentagon isn't immune to the same calcifying forces that have made the rest of government so inefficient and expensive.

Professor Nichols, who rejects O'Reilly's idea out of hand, wrote a brilliant book on how the old Westphalian and Cold War systems are ill-equipped to deal with the new threats facing us. Jihadists cannot be deterred with the threat of force the way the Soviet Union was, because according to their warped religious views, dying in battle earns a VIP pass to an eternal orgy. Surely this fact alone calls for more creative solutions than lobbing Tomahawk missiles (at $1.4 million a pop) at empty buildings.

O'Reilly's proposal surely has its flaws, but at least it's driven by a desire to come up with a way to cut the Gordian knot we've tied ourselves in.

We do not need mercenaries nor do we need allies.

We need LEADERSHIP and we need COURAGE & STRENGTH from our citizens.

There is no easy nor quick solution....eternal vigilance.

Haven’t heard any talking head say, “French Foreign Legion.” Essentially what Falafel Boy is proposing. Could work, but still would need tail for the teeth (combat support, combat services support), and some level of integral aviation, armor, & artillery. Can’t defeat the bad guys with just bodies and light & crew served weapons.

Professor Nichols, who rejects O'Reilly's idea out of hand, wrote a brilliant book on how the old Westphalian and Cold War systems are ill-equipped to deal with the new threats facing us. Jihadists cannot be deterred with the threat of force the way the Soviet Union was, because according to their warped religious views, dying in battle earns a VIP pass to an eternal orgy.

Oh? Fanatical, you say? See: IJA, 1937-1945, Prof.

O’Reilly had best stick to his journalism. We cannot hire mercs these days like he imagines. Yes, I commanded a company of the same, but; we were in a war with US boots on the ground around us, plus we had a secret war going on. My Rhade montagnard riflemen made over $230 in piasters a month in 1968. My top interpreter made over $435. Platoon leaders averaged $340. A Viet LT made $25 plus what he stole. Those men paid a heavy price as only one man survived that war. Y Blim Nie lives in NC.

There is no “eternal orgy” when you’ve been blasted into nothingness. So long as we are hamstrung by the concept of not “stooping to their level”, we will lose! There is only one solution to this problem - total eradication. They have to be treated like we do mice, cockroaches, fire ants, etc.

In these battles, ALL weapons are in play. That includes napalm, poison gas and even nukes.

“We need LEADERSHIP and we need COURAGE & STRENGTH from our citizens.”

I agree. But more importantly we need an administration in Washington that is not devoted to treason and destroying America.

I'd suggest that this army of lawyers overseeing military affairs is a characteristic of a dying empire. For that matter, the credence we give to useless "talking heads" on television is, too.

Professor Nichols, who rejects O’Reilly’s idea out of hand, wrote a brilliant book on how the old Westphalian and Cold War systems are ill-equipped to deal with the new threats facing us. Jihadists cannot be deterred with the threat of force the way the Soviet Union was, because according to their warped religious views, dying in battle earns a VIP pass to an eternal orgy. Surely this fact alone calls for more creative solutions than lobbing Tomahawk missiles (at $1.4 million a pop) at empty buildings.

The “creative” solution is relatively obvious: use their religious beliefs against them. Let them know that if they are killed in battle, their captured corpses will be buried with pork.

Of course, most civilized people won’t stand for such tactics, however effective they might be. But would they rather stand for having their children & treasure expended in a decades long war?

I hate to tell everyone, but we are already there using mercenaries to fight the war against terrorists. Granted, it is not in large numbers, but what do you call Blackwater and other such companies. And, IMHO, it is not limited to just ground operations.

The use of mercenaries gives political coverage to various national and international “leaders”. It absolves them from truly supporting a very long duration, expensive (dollars and bodies), hard to win war. For a micro-view of what I am talking about here look at internal American politics 2003 - 2013.

BTW - hiring foreign fighters to protect your soldiers and fight for you goes back as far as Vietnam. And less clearly back to the Napoleonic Wars, perhaps even further.

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.