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.
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.
“..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)