NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0302/p09s02-coop.html

In 2005, the Pentagon amended its Standing Rules of Engagement (ROE). The new rules make it harder for US troops to boldly counter hostile acts, and they specifically allow commanders to limit the right of soldiers to defend themselves!

Pretty soon all troops will have wearing "shoot me I'm American" t-shirts mandatory and they'll have to just stand there in a square formation and only fire on command like during colonial battles (http://www.theg33ks.com/images/Cossacks25NewScreens/resized-Prussian_and_Russian_lines_in_Leipzig_Battle.jpg).

We're trying to use soldiers and Marines as policemen. Their purpose is to fight and win wars. Period. No wonder things look so bad in Iraq and Ashcanistan. If we aren't going to use them to their potential, let's just bring them home, so they can have wonderfully idle lives of cleaning weapons and doing PT.

wow....I have never seen an article so devoid of actual useful information in my life.

wow....I have never seen an article so devoid of actual useful information in my life.

It is commentary...

Indeed, the inherent right of self-defense provided the basis for the US response to 9/11.
And, like a soldier without appropriate ROE restrictions, the United States struck out irrationally at the wrong target, causing countless civilian casualties. Thanks for the enlightening analogy, Christian Science Monitor!

wow....I have never seen an article so devoid of actual useful information in my life.

Why do I have the feeling that your only knocking it because it has the word "Christian" in the title? :rolleyes:

Pretty soon all troops will have wearing "shoot me I'm American" t-shirts mandatory and they'll have to just stand there in a square formation and only fire on command like during colonial battles (http://www.theg33ks.com/images/Cossacks25NewScreens/resized-Prussian_and_Russian_lines_in_Leipzig_Battle.jpg).

Why do I have the feeling that your only knocking it because it has the word "Christian" in the title? :rolleyes:

My your full of knee-jerks tonight.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0302/p09s02-coop.html



Pretty soon all troops will have wearing "shoot me I'm American" t-shirts mandatory and they'll have to just stand there in a square formation and only fire on command like during colonial battles (http://www.theg33ks.com/images/Cossacks25NewScreens/resized-Prussian_and_Russian_lines_in_Leipzig_Battle.jpg).

Uh...what the fuck?

Why do I have the feeling that your only knocking it because it has the word "Christian" in the title? :rolleyes:

I am knocking it because it provides no useful information what so ever. It references a particular executive action, speaks to the "effect" of that action, without actually quoting or providing any information what so ever to the content of that action, leaving me absolutly unable to form an independant evaluation.

All I have is this author's opinion he doesn't substantiate, about a source he doesn't provide.

This is the worst form of crap journalism.

From the looks of it (meaning if its even true). This doesn't look that much different from UN Peacekeepers have to deal with

By Kyndra Rotunda? Is that a real name?

Haven't read the article yet--I'm still staggered by that little number. :p

Yes,and UN peacekeepers really do a great job,dont they?:headbang:

and why do UN peacekeepers do a bad job?

Edit: Timewarps suck

Yes,and UN peacekeepers really do a great job,dont they?:headbang:

Hmmm. First she quotes Negroponte's linkage of Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, and then she says this:
Holding fire may appease CNN, but it can only delight and encourage America's terrorist enemies and protract the war in Iraq.

I love the smell of an agenda in heat.

Why do I have the feeling that your only knocking it because it has the word "Christian" in the title? :rolleyes:

Nice. the Christian Science Monitor is reputable, that doesn't mean it doesn't sometimes print bullshit on the editorial page.

Case in point, why does the article refer to rules changed in 2005 as "new rules" that are suddenly going to start getting our troops slaughtered.

In 2005, the Pentagon amended its Standing Rules of Engagement (ROE). The new rules make it harder for US troops to boldly counter hostile acts, and they specifically allow commanders to limit the right of soldiers to defend themselves!

Nice. the Christian Science Monitor is reputable, that doesn't mean it doesn't sometimes print bullshit on the editorial page.

Case in point, why does the article refer to rules changed in 2005 as "new rules" that are suddenly going to start getting our troops slaughtered.

Not to mention that the insurgents were doing a pretty good number on US soldiers prior to 2005, as I recall. It was probably that 600K Iraqis dead number that got the DOD a little skittish.

blahblahblahAshcanistanblahblahblah
how cute.
Did you think that pithy little bon mot up all by yourself?
Take long did it?
Your parents must be very proud.

Case in point, why does the article refer to rules changed in 2005 as "new rules" that are suddenly going to start getting our troops slaughtered.
Surely you know by now that any change which might affect 'our troops' negatively is a 'new' change that occurred post-November 2006 (or sometime during the period of 1993 - 2000).
Anyone who says otherwise is a liar and blaggard.

Sure, ROE is a little stricter than it was before but company and batallion cmmdrs still have a firm control over the ROE in their AO. The force continuum still applies. That hasn't changed and is still the basis for how all military units engage. The biggest pet peeve that i would have with it is the incident reports that we have to file every time a bullet is discharged. I understand why politicians would want it and i can't really think of a better way to control escalation errors so i guess we'll just have to deal with it.

Sure, ROE is a little stricter than it was before but company and batallion cmmdrs still have a firm control over the ROE in their AO. The force continuum still applies. That hasn't changed and is still the basis for how all military units engage. The biggest pet peeve that i would have with it is the incident reports that we have to file every time a bullet is discharged. I understand why politicians would want it and i can't really think of a better way to control escalation errors so i guess we'll just have to deal with it.

Wait, what is this? An ACTUAL military person who has ACTUALLY served in Iraq? And this conflicts with...um....some dude's opinion?

You obviously must be mistaken sir. This...um....guy..must be right.

Wait, what is this? An ACTUAL military person who has ACTUALLY served in Iraq? And this conflicts with...um....some dude's opinion?

You obviously must be mistaken sir. This...um....guy..must be right.

Yeah but you still need to understand that there are different POV's and different opinions. The writer of the article is a professor and apparently was a former reservist JAG officer. I wouldn't say that he has the best perspective of how it affects things on the ground but he certainly would know the law better than i would. If i'm not mistaken Myrmidonisia also served and he had a completely different opinion than me. This discrepancy may be there b/c i'm an officer and i believe that he was enlisted. You just have a different perspective. In the military mine would override his but in the civilian world each is worth its own share. Mine is not the end all be all.

We're trying to use soldiers and Marines as policemen. Their purpose is to fight and win wars. Period. No wonder things look so bad in Iraq and Ashcanistan. If we aren't going to use them to their potential, let's just bring them home, so they can have wonderfully idle lives of cleaning weapons and doing PT.
Why is it so difficult to understand that sometimes you can do your safety and the success of a mission a world of good by being nice to the people you meet?

There is no telling how many Afghans or Iraqis gave up on the foreigners because they saw soldiers act like assholes or heard stories about it. But that's not so much a matter of ROE as of good training.

But then there are the stories of people getting killed because those soldiers are scared for their lives and shoot the one time when they shouldn't have. And once that happens, the whole neighbourhood knows about it. And then the neighbourhood next to it. And the next week, AQ will mention it in their videos. Rules of Engagement can help set the tone for the soldier who has to leave his base. If it is made clear to him (or her) that today we won't be using our guns, that might just prevent that one nasty incident.

I agree that the changes are meaningless if they aren't part of a wider agenda to build a military that can get along with people on the ground. But to reject them because "that's not what soldiers do" is just plain stupid. A military isn't there to shoot people, it's there to get a certain policy objective completed. Whether or not something is appropriate for the military to do depends entirely on whether or not it helps achieve the objective.

and why do UN peacekeepers do a bad job?Because unlike US troops they have meaningful purposes. US troops are just fighting for their and their president's own entertainment.

Why do I have the feeling that your only knocking it because it has the word "Christian" in the title? :rolleyes:

I'd say its more to do with the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.....

wow....I have never seen an article so devoid of actual useful information in my life.

I was going to jump in and support the journalist's right to make comment (as opposed to reporting of fact or conjecture).

Then I read the article. Oh dear.

I expect better of the CS Monitor, which isn't the arch-conservative publication that its title might suggest.

My your full of knee-jerks tonight.

What? you prefere the jerks be somewhat higher than the knee? :D

What? you prefere the jerks be somewhat higher than the knee? :D

Do you know how hard it is to kick a jerk in the gonads if they're shorter than your knee?

WHy won't the Yanks just pull out and leave it to the blue berets? Is it any wonder that aggressors are by default doomed as peacekeepers? Finnish and other UN troops may not be as "efficient" in returning fire, but their long standing neutrality earns them respect as mediators from the locals. Has been proven countless times.

How come over five decades only a handful of Finnish UN troops have been casualties in spots at times just as tight as Iraq is now? And the latest one murdered by the "good guys" military for that matter.

Joona

I expect better of the CS Monitor, which isn't the arch-conservative publication that its title might suggest.
Me as well. The CSM usually has some pretty decent well-researched articles, with little hint of bias.
This was not one of them.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0302/p09s02-coop.html



Pretty soon all troops will have wearing "shoot me I'm American" t-shirts mandatory and they'll have to just stand there in a square formation and only fire on command like during colonial battles (http://www.theg33ks.com/images/Cossacks25NewScreens/resized-Prussian_and_Russian_lines_in_Leipzig_Battle.jpg).

Yeh, shooting on command as opposed to at random,WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?

Reduction in friendly fire and civilian casualties anyone- FUCK NO TO THAT!!


I'm kinda simplifying this but, meh.

Yeh, shooting on command as opposed to at random,WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?

That's why you are given "Rules of Engagement" that specify when you may fire, and you are expected to observe the rules and use your judgment.

You don't have to wait for a command unless it's in the ROE. Otherwise, there are specified conditions that, when met, you may open fire.

Certainly not at random.