Posted on 09/29/2015 10:50:54 AM PDT by jazusamo
War is nasty, brutal and costly. In our latest wars, many of the casualties suffered by American troops are a direct result of their having to obey rules of engagement created by politicians who have never set foot on — or even seen — a battlefield. Today's battlefield commanders must be alert to the media and do-gooders who are all too ready to demonize troops involved in a battle that produces noncombatant deaths, so-called collateral damage.
According to a Western Journalism article by Leigh H Bravo, "Insanity: The Rules of Engagement" (http://tinyurl.com/p59nlqs), our troops fighting in Afghanistan cannot do night or surprise searches. Also, villagers must be warned prior to searches. Troops may not fire at the enemy unless fired upon. U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present. And only women can search women. Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said: "We handcuffed our troops in combat needlessly. This was very harmful to our men and has never been done in U.S combat operations that I know of." Collateral damage and the unintentional killing of civilians are a consequence of war. But the question we should ask is: Are our troops' lives less important than the inevitable collateral damage?
The unnecessary loss of life and casualties that result from politically correct rules of engagement are about to be magnified in future conflicts by mindless efforts to put women in combat units. In 2013, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta officially lifted the ban on women serving in ground combat roles. On Jan. 1, 2016, all branches of the military must either open all positions to women or request exceptions. That boils down to having women serve in combat roles, because any commander requesting exceptions would risk having his career terminated in the wake of the screeching and accusations...
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
That's the key phrase. Quit dicking around, devastate them and destroy again if they reconstitute themselve as a threat to the US.
Grenada.
Yeah, I know it isn’t much, but it’s something.
Works for me. This limited war is c**p and causes the unnecessary loss of American lives, of course the turkey in the WH could care less.
Fight a war to win just as we did in WWII. There were many fanatics in Germany and Japan and they haven’t come back for more.
Think about the obvious. If we can initiate, we can initiate under circumstances that minimize "collateral damage." The alternative is the all too common use of women & children as human shields, etc., as well as other contrived efforts to propagandize, at our expense. (Remember the reality that we are often in fire-fights with folk who put a far lower value on human life than does the typical American.)
It is very difficult to conceive of any pro-American reason for such rules of engagement.
In the kind of war we’re asking our guys to fight, its over seconds after it starts, and its the guy that shoots first who wins.
Gen:5 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.
God made us male and female for a reason. The male and the female have different roles to fulfill. They should not be confused with nonsense like women in combat roles. It will never, ever work because it is not God’s purpose or plan for mankind.
The whole thing is absolutely indefensible.
Grenada.....I stand corrected...a work buddy served in that short but successful outing. Leave it to the Gipper.
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.