I know it's a judicial process, but things can get changed and be influenced by an angry public opinion, on rare occasions.
Do we want diplomats, or enemy killers? Do we want our military's hands tied, or do we want them to wipe out strong holds and those that give aid and comfort and a base of operations to road side bombers?
Do we want our son's to win, like they are trained to win and come home safe? Or play by "rules of engagement" in a new kind of war, where these rules don't work and they come home in boxes, killed by a road side bomb and never having had a chance to face his enemy or defend himself? This enemy is not a signature to any Geneva Convention. No one observes or is demanded to observe it but us, and to our disadvantage.
President Bush is the "Commander in Chief", no general is higher than him, they answer to him. President Bush sent out the warning and defined the enemy before we ever sat foot in the Middle East. "If you support terrorists, if you give aid and comfort to the terrorists, you are a terrorist".
We all heard it, we supposed he meant it. And these Marines supposed he meant it. To me they were following the orders of the "Commander in Chief", they discovered the enemy, they defined the enemy, they destroyed the enemy.
Now this city is no longer a terrorist strong hold. They should keep going and bulldoze it to the ground. I may sound like Patton/Attila the Hun squared to you. I don't care. This is a new type of war, fought against an enemy with no uniform, military organization, just hit and run killers supported by some towns and cities that give them aid comfort and a base of operations.
You don't spend months killing one ant at a time, you take out the hive. You keep them moving right out of your area or die. I'll never understand the way our guys are expected to fight and I will never let mine enlist because of the stupid way our guys are expected to fight.