'Rules' of War Limit Marines(and Soldiers...Must read!)

Orange County Register ^ | August 20, 2006 | GORDON DILLOW

[kellynla]

We call it "the war in Iraq." But to many of the Marines here, it's not really a war – at least not on their side.

"They are fighting a war," a Marine from 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment tells me – "they" meaning the insurgents lurking "outside the wire" of a Marine forward operating base in the Euphrates River town of Barwanah, in western Al Anbar province.

"But us?" the Marine goes on. "We aren't fighting a war. We're just doing a police action."

The young Marine is right. While the insurgents here and throughout Iraq battle American Marines and soldiers with deadly weapons of warfare – IEDs ("improvised explosive devices," or roadside bombs), sniper attacks, mortars, two of which exploded near this forward operating base just the day before – the Marines have to respond under "rules of engagement," or "ROEs," that would be familiar to any cop in America.

Are the Marines catching sniper rounds from a cluster of buildings in the city? In a conventional war, that would be reason enough to light up the buildings with suppressive fire.

But under the Iraq ROEs, unless the Marines get "P.I.D." or "positive identification" – eyes on a guy with a rifle, or a muzzle flash, something very localized and specific – they can't fire back.

Do the Marines see four young males fleeing the scene of an IED attack? The Marines can try to chase them down in vehicles or on foot – this while the Marines are carrying 60 or 70 pounds of equipment on their backs – but they can't even fire warning shots from their M-16s, much less lethal ones, to try to make them stop.

[Taxman]

Thanks for the post, gunny.

Chieftain, you and Warrior Nurse need to read this post!

[Name Withheld]

Police actions are losing prospects...but so are iron-fisted occupations.

[Name Withheld]

brainless,merciless, and brutal Muslim Nazis

You'll never win a war against an enemy you don't understand.

[Name Withheld]

I dearly hope and pray that the United States will never again cut and run FRom any field of combat.

What if the keeping the field isn't worth the price?

[Lumper20]

Yep, unnamed sources. The gossip and rumors just keep on rolling in by the MSM.

[Taxman]

There is no substitute for victory!

We are engaged in a World War -- a clash of civilizations, of Western Civilization vs. the 7th Century forces of evil and darkeness, and you are telling me that keeping the field is not worth the price?

Have you gone daft of your senses?

[Name Withheld]

keeping the field is not worth the price?

If the Arabs want the countries they have, let them -- they're dirt holes, IMO. The only thing valuable there is the oil, and we should trade for it while figuring out a better source of fuel rather than waste military resources holding otherwise worthless tracts of desert.

a clash of civilizations, of Western Civilization vs. the 7th Century forces of evil and darkeness

Please. When the Moors come knocking on your door, you've got a case. Until then, elect a president who will enforce the immigration law and who won't involve us in fruitless battles in the desert (which has far more to do with 9/11 than "hating us for our freedoms," I'd wager).

[Lumper20]

I would withold my name SN with a Code Pink/VVAW/Kerry/Murtha comment like that, too.

[Lumper20]

GET ROACH COKE, THE POWDER KILLS THEM ALL.

[Taxman]

Has nothing to do with geographial features. It is about destroying a 7th Century Death Cult. It is about short run sacrifice for long term gain; i.e., destroy the Islamofacists before they destroy Western Civilization.

The world wins, big time, when we accomplish our goals in the Middle East. And, we must stay the course, because if we leave the field of battle before the deed is done, the Moors will be knocking down every Westerner's door!

Are you hoping it will be after you are dead and buried? What sort of future are you bequeathing your descendents with that line of reasoning?

And, BTW, the US buys all of its oil on the open market -- this war is not about oil. It is about the survival of Western Civilization.

[CedarDave]

Someone posted the article with the wrong title (terrorist's winning) and no direct link. The thread was pulled. Before it was, however, I made this observation reposted here:

This is an excellent article. It details how our boys hands are being tied, especially with the likes of Murtha. From the article:

True, in the rare event of an all-out firefight, a direct confrontation with the enemy, the rules change. When faced with a conventional attack by insurgents, Marines can respond conventionally, with overwhelming firepower.

But in routine, day-to-day operations, every single shot fired by Marines here must be documented and reviewed by higher command. Let me repeat that: Every single shot fired by Marines is reported to and reviewed by higher command – regimental level or above – to make sure that it conformed to the ROEs.

[F.J. Mitchell]

What's to understand except they are committed to slaughtering all non-muslims. We win the war by killing them before they kill us.

[Name Withheld]

destroy the Islamofacists before they destroy Western Civilization

Do you think that will eventually require genocide, since eventually killing enough of the "facist" ones will unite the rest? Would that be an unacceptable means of victory if it were true?

What sort of future are you bequeathing your descendents with that line of reasoning?

I don't know, but I'd rather reason than not. Likewise, I'd rather NOT leave them a perpetual war...so again, it's either withdraw or be willing to use genocide.

this war is not about oil. It is about the survival of Western Civilization

WHy is Western Civilization imperiled? Might it have something to do with our continued presencce in the Middle East? Or do you believe that the Wahhabi nuts are going to come looking for us just because we're free?

The only way I can figure your line of reasoning to work is to say that Israel is an outpost of Western Civilization under attack...okay, fine. Give the Palestinians their own land so they have no more excuse to avoid bettering themselves.

Seriously, if the Mexicans were holding San Antonio (well, openly, anyway), and China was supplying them with weapons used against Americans, you'd be pissed off too, wouldn't you?

[Taxman]

Had your line of reasoning been the policy of Western Civilization beginning in, say 1095, there would be no Western Civilization today.

When one faces that unpleasant truth, one begins to realize, if one values Western Civilization, that is, that there is a strong moral imperative to do whatever it takes to ensure the survival of Western Civilization.

By extension, since the USA represents the highest social, economic and political achievement in man's history on this earth, we are obliged (if we value the USA and what it stands for) to do whatever it takes to ensure the survival of the USA, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

BTW, if there were no Israel and if there were no Kaffirs in the Middle East, there still would be Islamofascist aggression against the rest of the world. Remember, the Moslem definition of peace is the absence of any religion save the Moslem religion.

Western Civilization is at grave risk, and the sooner we admit it, drop the PC crap and fight fire with fire, the better off we will be.

[Name Withheld]

since the USA represents the highest social, economic and political achievement in man's history on this earth

Economic, certainly, as well as technological. The other two are arguable (at least its actual, current form).

if one values Western Civilization, that is, that there is a strong moral imperative to do whatever it takes to ensure the survival of Western Civilization

Be careful when you're making sentences with "moral imperative" and "whatever it takes." That's the same line of thought that leads to terrorism, too.

[Taxman]

Please forgive me, I left out Western Civilization's technological supremeacy in my earlier remarks.

I am not aware of another country (either today or in the history of man's walk on this earth) with a better developed economic system or political system. Are you?

The thoughts that lead to terrorism are purely evil thoughts -- there is no way that "moral imperative" can be construed as evil, IMHO. When "moral imperative" is defined by a purely evil person for evil purposes, the "good guys" (that'd be US!) have to speak out to ensure that the term is not misused and abused.

Muslim terrorists are, IMHO, purely evil and are misusing the term "moral imperative;" i.e., they are redefining it to suit their evil purposes. It really is a damn shame that so many Westerners are keeping aFRaid to speak up on this point.

I am not ashamed to posit that those of us who believe in the primacy of Western Civilization should speak up in terms of our moral imperative to destroy those who would destroy us, and use whatever means are at our disposal to do so.

Islamofascist Terrorism must be wiped FRom the face of the earth. If it takes genocide to do so, then so be it.

You do believe that a cancer must be destroyed lest it take over the whole body, do you not?

What are our alternatives?

[Just A Nobody]

Give the Palestinians their own land so they have no more excuse to avoid bettering themselves.

The so-called palestinians had their own land, it is called Jordan. The thugs got thrown out and refer to themselves as "palestinians" and demand, using terror, all sorts of things, including land.

If you want to insist on "giving them their own land" AGAIN - here's a thought - how about a section of one of the huge land mass muslim countries. Why insist on a postage size sliver of land in teeny tiny Israel?

Perhaps Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Kazakhstan or Algeria could give them a slice of their vast property. Or send them back to Jordan from whence they cam.

[Name Withheld]

No trouble, though the West's mastery of spelling may not be what it used to.

I am not aware of another country (either today or in the history of man's walk on this earth) with a better developed economic system or political system

This one, only much closer to its founding (though of course at that time it was self-conciously, if only partially, built on theft and invasion...so maybe it wasn't all roses then either). ANd back then it had money that meant something.

The thoughts that lead to terrorism are purely evil thoughts -- there is no way that "moral imperative" can be construed as evil, IMHO

What thoughts lead to terrorism, exactly? And how does one know whether being willing to do anything for one's cause is justified or whether one is in fact a terrorist?

slamofascist Terrorism must be wiped FRom the face of the earth. If it takes genocide to do so, then so be it.

The reason why people doubt the right on this issue is because it looks like it's trying to dress up self-preservation and -interest in noble clothes...they way they see it, the Muslim terrorists think the exact same thing you do: that the West must be wiped from the face of the earth, and killing innocents (which genocide requires!) is acceptable for the noble end of Allah's word.

I am not ashamed to posit that those of us who believe in the primacy of Western Civilization should speak up in terms of our moral imperative to destroy those who would destroy us, and use whatever means are at our disposal to do so.

Look, I agree that the West in its ideal form is the best we've seen, and I agree that we have the right to defend ourselves. But using "whatever means are at our disposal" is contrary to the greatness of the West. You're throwing the baby out with the bath.

You do believe that a cancer must be destroyed lest it take over the whole body, do you not?

Yes -- but if you have to undergo treatments which make life a little longer but horrible, then perhaps a dignified death is better. (I'm not suggesting that the West roll over and die -- far from it; however, there may be things necessary for survival that are contrary to goodness and justice.)

What are our alternatives?

Let them have their countries and their place in the sun, for starters.

[Name Withheld]

If the United Nations gave Mt. Rushmore to the Sioux, would you be pissed off?

[Modok]

Gee Bush, thanks for watching out for the religion of peacers. I guess my young ones will just have to take the incoming so it doesn't upset your little compassionate ass.