In ordinary combat? Absolutely not. The problem is if and when you have Mi Lai-style situations, where American soldiers go ape and take out civilians. Such has happened, and is inevitable when you send twenty-somethings out with guns to kill people. That doesn't make it acceptable.
Now, telling the difference between a civilian and an insurgent is not easy. No one disputes that - but the UCMJ demands that soldiers act reasonably. The rules of engagement require that you reasonably believe the target is a threat before engaging - you cannot indiscriminately shoot anyone who speaks Arabic.
Do the JAG-happy boys in the DoD even know the nature of the enemy we're facing?
This line shows this piece is nothing more than a rant. People like Gen. Patraeus know better than anyone here the nature of the enemy we're facing. It's a counter-insurgency - and in such a situation, a "kill 'em all" approach is disastrous because it makes more insurgents.
Concur with your view.
Good article, RedRover. The excessive force issue is an important topic as the WOT continues.
Jude24, there may be some validity to a kill-em all approach inviting more insurgency. During combat, however, a sort-em out approach leads to hesitation and more dead US troops. That too is an important issue in the WOT. Where’s the crossover? How many dead or injured troops are acceptable to prevent the insurgents from using civilan casualties as a propaganda tool?
I maintain that there has never been a conviction of a soldier or Marine who responded to a direct attack and killed civilians. When all the emoting is swept away, Haditha and the Afghan Highway were responses to attacks And that's why they'll be nearly impossible to prosecute in court while prosecution in the media is a breeze.
I believe the DoD (or, more properly, influential individuals within that sprawling bureaucracy) are urging prosecution of cases that can't be won. And I don't see this as having a salutory effect on the WOT.
My Lai was an aberration, and as such, was not condoned in any way. It has nothing whatsoever to with Haditha.
Your reference to twenty-somethings with guns killing people is insulting.What age should a soldier be in your opinion, before they're allowed to defend themselves?
your comments are so incredibly idiotic that they must be part of /sarcasm or you want to get flamed
very few join the Armed Forces to "kill people"
I can tell you that completing the mission of defending our country,
-willing to die for our country
-willing to fight and place yourself between genuinely bad people in far away places at night or in foreign places and our country
-but above all willing to do your duty in spite of chicken sh#t liberal quislings questioning your motivation and honor make the Marine Corps front line troops the main target for the people like yourself that think combat is murder.
Combat is to murder like holy matrimony is to pornography. It's pathetic, uneducated cowards that label soldiers and Marines "killers".
I take pride in service, but above all else I take pride in the bravery I've seen and the brothers in arms that have honored me by allowing me to serve at their side when "so called men" like yourself are safe at home while they defended my life with their lives.