With the current rules of engagement, this will become Obama's "Viet Nam". It appears that one almost needs that approval of the JCS to fire one's weapon.
The entire purpose of soldiers is to place their lives at risk in order to protect the lives of civilians. And as long as we insist on this fool's errand of nation building in Afghanistan, that means risking the lives of American soldiers to protect the lives of Afghanis.
If we have a problem with this, we should be getting out of Afghanistan. Not adoptting a policy that as long as you kill some Taliban, it doesn't matter how many bystanders you kill in the process.
If you read the counterinsurgency manual that Gen. Petraeus helped create, you would be assured that he has no intention of killing some Taliban regardless of cost. This has been amply demonstrated during his tenure in Iraq.
Stormy: If General Sherman had felt as you did, the Confederacy would still exist, and blacks sout of the Mason-Dixon line would still be slaves, or at best, serfs of some kind.
If Bomber Harris, and Hap armol;d had felt the same way, Nazi Germany might have been able to pull an armistace out of the hat.
Perhaps war should be terrible? And maybe we should make sure those who visit it on us don't want it anymore?
Odd, I never thought that the entire purpose of a soldier is to protect the lives of civilians. Perhaps that is why we have been having so much trouble winning wars anymore. I always though the purpose of a soldier is to kill people and break things...until the enemy no longer can muster the will to accept any more losses or fight on. Well, that's how wars used to be won anyway.
The ultimate reason that soldiers (at least in a Constitutional Republic such as we are supposed to have in theory) kill people and break things is to keep others from doing the same unto our civilian population.
But I do agree that in order to protect civlizied society, you have to have a bit of barbarian attitude and the willingness to go medevial on the ass of the enemy when the situation warrants it.
It's like the Deterrence mission of SAC in the cold war. The goal was to prevent our people from being nuked. They accomplished the mission by being obviously prepared to bring nuclear hellfire down on the heads of anyone that attacked the US. Not a civilized attitude, but it did keep the peace for almost 50 years.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/07/it-is-well-that-war-is-so-terrible.html (9 comments)
With the current rules of engagement, this will become Obama's "Viet Nam". It appears that one almost needs that approval of the JCS to fire one's weapon.
Heh. I TOLD you you'd like it!
The entire purpose of soldiers is to place their lives at risk in order to protect the lives of civilians. And as long as we insist on this fool's errand of nation building in Afghanistan, that means risking the lives of American soldiers to protect the lives of Afghanis.
If we have a problem with this, we should be getting out of Afghanistan. Not adoptting a policy that as long as you kill some Taliban, it doesn't matter how many bystanders you kill in the process.
Idon't think anyone is advocating a shoot everything that moves policy. You can, and they quite possibly have, go too far in the other direction.
When you aren't allowed to shoot at armed men laying IEDs in front of you, you are failing to protect yourself, let alone Afghani civilians.
Stormy,
If you read the counterinsurgency manual that Gen. Petraeus helped create, you would be assured that he has no intention of killing some Taliban regardless of cost. This has been amply demonstrated during his tenure in Iraq.
Stormy: If General Sherman had felt as you did, the Confederacy would still exist, and blacks sout of the Mason-Dixon line would still be slaves, or at best, serfs of some kind.
If Bomber Harris, and Hap armol;d had felt the same way, Nazi Germany might have been able to pull an armistace out of the hat.
Perhaps war should be terrible? And maybe we should make sure those who visit it on us don't want it anymore?
For an interesting take on the real Arthur, read "The Chalice of Magdalene" by Graham Phillips, copyright 1996.
Odd, I never thought that the entire purpose of a soldier is to protect the lives of civilians. Perhaps that is why we have been having so much trouble winning wars anymore. I always though the purpose of a soldier is to kill people and break things...until the enemy no longer can muster the will to accept any more losses or fight on. Well, that's how wars used to be won anyway.
The ultimate reason that soldiers (at least in a Constitutional Republic such as we are supposed to have in theory) kill people and break things is to keep others from doing the same unto our civilian population.
But I do agree that in order to protect civlizied society, you have to have a bit of barbarian attitude and the willingness to go medevial on the ass of the enemy when the situation warrants it.
It's like the Deterrence mission of SAC in the cold war. The goal was to prevent our people from being nuked. They accomplished the mission by being obviously prepared to bring nuclear hellfire down on the heads of anyone that attacked the US. Not a civilized attitude, but it did keep the peace for almost 50 years.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>