Article

2007-07-03 Home Front: Politix

The Real Disgrace: Washington's Battlefield "Ethics"

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ed 2007-07-03 06:46|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 "Iraqis throw Molotov cocktails (i.e., gasoline-filled bottles) at your vehicle--but you are prohibited from responding with force. Iraqis, to quote the study, 'drop large chunks of concrete blocks from second story buildings or overpasses' as you drive by--but you are not allowed to respond."

I'm sure these restrictions apply equally to the British military. Whoever declares that our troops should not defend themselves from a potentially fatal attack - be it by a 25 yr old insurgent or a five year old - is guilty of an act of treason and aiding the enemy.

Posted by Bulldog 2007-07-03 08:17|| 2007-07-03 08:17|| Front Page Top

#2 The article is somewhat out of date. US troops are relying much more on local intelligence, and taking the battle to the enemy. Although the June casualties were high, few were from snipers and IEDs. I have never liked show-the-flag patrols, when search-and-destroy is not an option.

As for hair trigger use of force in Iraq, that is the product of suicide bombings and standing suppression fire orders, when under attack.

Posted by McZoid 2007-07-03 09:09|| 2007-07-03 09:09|| Front Page Top

#3 The rules of engagement are indeed cynical.

Posted by Pearl Greaper5013 2007-07-03 09:10|| 2007-07-03 09:10|| Front Page Top

#4 "taking the battle to the enemy"? When the US routinely destroys mosques from which fire is received, preferably with massive artillery fire, I'll believe we are doing that. Not until then.

Posted by Pearl Greaper5013 2007-07-03 09:13|| 2007-07-03 09:13|| Front Page Top

#5 One thing that I didn't like was when the terrorturds would shoot IDF and when our counter battery computers would triangulate and prepare to counter fire, if the enemy's IDF originated from a populated area our lads had to get clearance from higher to shoot back. Sometimes they were denied. That drives me up a f*ckn wall.

I personally believe in disproportionate force and so do the arabs because they understand it. Our govt is still lost in the sauce when it comes to really understanding our enemy.

Posted by Broadhead6 2007-07-03 09:16|| 2007-07-03 09:16|| Front Page Top

#6 Yup. Or at least some of them are, and they are restrained by the lawfare types.

Posted by lotp 2007-07-03 09:19|| 2007-07-03 09:19|| Front Page Top

#7 Broadhead, I heard the same thing from my brother in Iraq. He said that, because of the surrounding civilian population, there was essentially no counterbattery defense of the green zone.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-07-03 09:20|| 2007-07-03 09:20|| Front Page Top

#8 Here is precisely what takes place nearly everyday at Balad Air Base ("Mortaritaville") Iraq. It's neat to hear it rip off in the middle of the night. I only wish it were 155mm pounding the surrounding neighborhood instead. Watching them bracket a C-12 on taxi with 3 rounds of 60mm is no fun:

Responding to an Israeli search (and offers of quick sales) for anti-rocket/ mortar systems, the company (Raytheon) that makes the Phalanx anti-ship missile system, has adapted a Phalanx to use a laser instead of a 20mm automatic cannon. The Phalanx radar can spot incoming object at up to 5,000 meters, and destroy them at up to 2,000 meters with its 20mm cannon. But by using an off-the-shelf solid state laser, Raytheon was able to detect and destroy a 60mm mortar shell (which is smaller than any current rocket) at a range of "over 500 meters".

Posted by Besoeker 2007-07-03 09:37|| 2007-07-03 09:37|| Front Page Top

#9 Military and civilian observers have concluded from the study that more and stricter training in combat ethics is urgently needed.

If the 'ethics' are based upon some spinhead with no comprehension of the real battlefield or some lawyer pushing his concept of what 'should be' then its junk and will remain junk. The fundamental reason real warriors fight is for their buddies. When you tell the troops that they're expendable for some metaphorical concept, they'll regress into self preservation which means in the end, they won't fight. Any ROE and ethics have to be realistic to the environment that the warrior inhabits, not one in some air conditioned group think tank thousands of miles away exists in. Today we use people not Skynet to fight our conflicts. They're not robots. And you'd better be damn well certain you want the heart removed from the warrior when you [yes, you the member of that unattached uninvested self proclaimed pontificating philosopher and or lawyer who knows better, but never been there crowd] decide you want robots to do your bidding. Robots are what power mongers and politicians want. It should be the first and last warning that anyone advocating such should be trashed canned immediately, for it reveals their souls far more than many other indicators.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-07-03 09:38|| 2007-07-03 09:38|| Front Page Top

#10 The death and misery caused by Washington's self-crippling rules of engagement--rules endorsed by liberals and conservatives alike

Odd. I don't endorse them. I don't think most people here endorse them.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2007-07-03 10:54|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2007-07-03 10:54|| Front Page Top

#11 There is a propoganda media aspect to consider. If we return fire you should have no doubt there will be civilian casualties reported in the media. They might have been the attackers, they might ahve been a family trapped in the home used to fire the mortors or they might have been neighbors but they will be portrayed as martyrs by the BBC and the NY Times without explaination.

The Jihadi want civilian casualties so they have been trying to reverse the suicide bomb thing and get us to create the civilian casualties but we haven't taken the bait.

The military has to deal with that and create ROE accordingly. It sucks but that's war.

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-07-03 10:59|| 2007-07-03 10:59|| Front Page Top

#12 rjs has it exactly right, I do believe. The objective is to win the war, not the battles, and this war will be won or lost back home, in the media. Same as Vietnam. RoE are crafted to try to find a workable balance between losing too many of our guys while fighting the military battles and losing too many media battles from collateral damage.
"It sucks, but that's war."

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-07-03 11:23|| 2007-07-03 11:23|| Front Page Top

#13 I think the key sentence is "This perverse view of war holds that fighting selfishly to defend your own freedom by defeating enemies is wrong; but fighting to selflessly serve the needs of others is virtuous. " This crap has to stop. It leads us to fight battles for little strategic benefit (I include Afghanistan and Iraq among them) in a manner that requires more us to expend more blood and resources than required. Instead the west only nibbles on the margins and allows muslim fundamentalism to grow and Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan to grow stronger and bolder. That's a formula for perpetual war or defeat.

Posted by ed 2007-07-03 11:37|| 2007-07-03 11:37|| Front Page Top

#14 Reactive fire which risks causing non-combatant casualties has other effects besides handing propaganda opportunities to the enemy: it makes the opportunistic rock/petrol bomb throwing youth think twice if he knows he can expect to be shot at in return, and the local populace will not voluntarily stand with those attacking our troops. They are not stupid - they will understand the consequences of associating with militants - but they are right to think that we are stupid if we demand that our personnel take any amount of abuse and disrespect.

The ROE should be relaxed to allow lethal force to be used against potentially lethal threats.

Posted by Bulldog 2007-07-03 11:53|| 2007-07-03 11:53|| Front Page Top

#15 #9
Brilliant summary, P2K, brilliant. I try to espouse this, but not as well stated as you. Yes, after a while the grunts realize they are being sacrificed and refuse to fight or they take matters into their own hands, as in Nam. Lots of officers started to suffer from unfortunate incidents. Some of the fighting became more "basic". The problem is that now the troops are "volunteers". Bought and paid for. Basically adhere to the party line. Not like draftees who were independent thinkers. This was massively covered up in after action reports in Nam, but scared the living bejesus out of the command set. After that, they wanted ONLY a volunteer Army.

Posted by Woozle Elmeter2970 2007-07-03 12:14|| 2007-07-03 12:14|| Front Page Top

#16 Could someone put a .5 sniper rifle on a UAV?

That might have the required effect

Posted by Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2007-07-03 12:19|| 2007-07-03 12:19|| Front Page Top

#17 and by UAV I also mean balloon.

Posted by Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2007-07-03 12:20|| 2007-07-03 12:20|| Front Page Top

#18 My father was an MP with the 9th Marines during WWII. One night, during the fighting on Guam, he was guarding a wounded prisoner. The soldier had a leg wound and was tied to a stretcher. During the night he was relieved by another Marine and it had started to rain. The next day when my father went to relieve the guard, he found a very dead Japanese soldier and no guard. When my Dad found his fellow MP he asked him what had happened. The response, "he tried to get away." My father loved this story, not because of the death of the Japansese soldier but how it epitomized the dehumanizing nature of war. He knew as soon as he saw that dead prisoner that the other guard had simply wanted to get out of the rain.

Fast forward to Viet Nam. As an F-4 WSO we had a mind numbing array of ROEs but one of my favorites was the inability to engage an enemy aircraft until after it had left the ground. Didn't want any pesky collateral damage in the neighborhood near the fields WHERE THEY PARKED THEIR AIRCRAFT!! As an aside, Francis Gabreski, the top ace in the ETO in WWII, shot himself down when he hit his prop on the ground while straffing German aircraft. Interdiction helped win that one.

Slow forward to the ROE nightmare of today. My father would have been tried as an accessory to murder. Gabreski would have been tried for endangering civilians and, by the way, losing an aircraft, and I would be trying to get my criminal record expunged if I had simply hit the 'pickle' button a few times when I sorely wanted to.

Until we take the gloves off, we will maybe not lose but we certainly won't start winning. And that Jack is a fact not an opinion.

Posted by Total War">Total War 2007-07-03 12:32|| 2007-07-03 12:32|| Front Page Top

#19 Bulldog, I don't disagree. In the initial invasion of Somalia the Marines RoE were to shoot at anyone brandishing a weapon. A couple of Somali's brandished, were killed, and after that the Marines were rarely hassled. Compare that to the Army experience a year later when they were forbidden to shoot unless shot at.

But there is a middle ground. When the enemy is willing to take over a school and launch morter fire with the intent of drawing fire upon that school and the captive schoolchildren you have to take that into account when you write up RoE.

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-07-03 14:08|| 2007-07-03 14:08|| Front Page Top

#20 Heel, congress. Heel.

Posted by newc">newc 2007-07-03 15:12|| 2007-07-03 15:12|| Front Page Top

#21 All of the above is partially right. It boils down to leadership in the end. If the boss is willing to stand behind your judgement and back your tactical decision, then there will almost never ever be an unneccessary use of force. I can tell you most of those kids would rather cut off their right arm than needlessly hurt an innocent bystander. I can tell you I hurt a kid in Haiti by accident and you live with it forever, but what I don't live with is having to medavac the boys (or face their families) from my unit I was moving to rescue when I hurt that child. Arabs understand brute force, they will not like it but they will respect it and that is where the big heads are not understanding the fight. Tearing up a neighborhood with counterfire will make bad press but would cure the locals from allowing the bad guys to come back. The battle would be won but the war would be lost to more "bad" press. We almost had to go to the Pope for permission to raid mosques or cemetaries where we had proof positive the bad guys were working, and normally got shot down...that's why we sent the Iraqis...and watched from a distance. You take care of your troopers, they will take care of business like professionals.

Posted by TopMac 2007-07-03 16:04|| 2007-07-03 16:04|| Front Page Top

#22 Total War,
Great comments -- I'll remember that story for a long time. Thanks for contributing.

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2007-07-03 18:22|| 2007-07-03 18:22|| Front Page Top

#23 The problem is that now the troops are "volunteers". Bought and paid for. Basically adhere to the party line. Not like draftees who were independent thinkers. This was massively covered up in after action reports in Nam, but scared the living bejesus out of the command set. After that, they wanted ONLY a volunteer Army.

I don't buy that, Woozle. My Marines are a hell of a lot higher caliber than they were 30 years ago. How many of your so-called independent thinkers had college degrees? How many of them were high-school graduates? Didn't have criminal records?

'Independent thinkers'? Crap. They didn't want to be there. Their leadership was screwed-up, their morale was shot, and their discipline was lax. That's a given. Times have changed somewhat, old man. Only the armchair genrals remain the same. And where did you find these so-called after-action reports. 'Winter Soldier' testimony?

Frankly, I'm glad the draft is over. The last thing I want is my NCOs having to babysit a bunch of snot-nose smartasses who don't want to be there.

I'm surprised you didn't use 'mercenary', 'mind-numbed robots' or a half dozen other labels that Markos Zuniga could've thought up while picking his nose.

'Bought and paid' for, my ass. And you can kiss that as well.

Posted by Pappy 2007-07-03 20:53|| 2007-07-03 20:53|| Front Page Top

#24 I'm about as civilian as it's possible for a little, Midwestern, suburban housewife to be, Woozle Elmeter2970, and even I know better than that nonsense. The kids I know who've volunteered for the military post-9/11, the elder siblings and school friends of the trailing daughters, they've gone in because that's what's needed right now. Every one of them has given up the possibility of a lucrative career in the private sector (not to mention the kind of full ride scholarships National Merit Scholars are prone to) in order to join tip of the spear units. You'll know those from the movies: the Marines, the Navy Seals, Army Rangers, that kind of thing.

And they do it so that you remain safe here at home typing the most chin-droolingly imbecilic thing you can think up from the semi-anonymous safety of your keyboard. I mean imbecilic in the technical sense of course. You'll find the definition in your old college Psych 101 textbook -- the one for non-majors.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-07-03 21:14|| 2007-07-03 21:14|| Front Page Top

#25 Weaselwhatever, my brother is "bought and paid for" and I can guarantee that if you tied one of his hands behind his back, he could still "independently" think of a way kick your ass for that comment.

I suspect that holds true for all the other bought and paid for soldiers as well.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-07-03 21:33|| 2007-07-03 21:33|| Front Page Top

#26 Pappy -- there's really somethin' good about any man that goes ape about his Misguided Children!

Seems, I remember reading, early in Petraeus taking over, that the first message he sent down, and I hope I'm remembering this right, "and your command will stand behind you." (I'll search for that later... )

Maybe I'm dis-remembering, but I took that as meaning "you commanders, step up or ship out.... and trust your guys on the front. They know what to do and when to do it." And it seems, we got lots and lots of bad guys being captured and killed. Even, commanders using and stating that word "kill." Didn't hear that word much, before.

Reading between the lines, we are beginning to give terrorists' counts, seems lot more are being killed. Leads me to believe, the ROE has changed some.

Another observation.... I read, as Petraeus was taking over, that Casey really wasn't much for the camera. He didn't like it, and thus, commanders under him, followed his lead..... and our fighting force got silent. Hummm, I said, when I read that. "Cause us old timers here at Rantburg, had followed a few commanders, who just disappeared. I once asked why, and got an answer, "he talked too much."

And now, man, Petraeus is live all over the place! Any talk show, TV show wants him, he's there. But the biggest difference I've notice, since I read about maybe there might be a change, his commanders are doing what he is doing. They are before cameras, they are writing articles for papers, they are being interviewed, and they are speaking from their hearts about their guys, and they use that word kill, and don't apologize for it.

Reading "Lone Survivor" -- and you must, if you haven't.... it's a rainy 4th of July day (if you live in Central Texas) of reading.... but I had to stretch it out, so I could savor every word, to get the visual picture of what was happening, to process and attempt to understand that mental strength that was happening throughout this story. The reason I mention this book? These incredible men, the best of the best...... when making a life or death decision, had to consider, what will the media do to us? And we will end up, a lifetime in Leverworth. What a sad thought process for our guys to have to process.

There weren't enough tears to let me fully understand, the decision they were making. Even more, that they had to include that piece (our press) as a part, a piece of the puzzle, that had to be included, in a rapid, life or death decision. Did they chose correctly? I only wish, that that part of the puzzle of that decision, shouldn't had to be included. But, it was

Don't go belittling Pappy's Misguided Children, or any of their friends...... I'm never been there, and most of you here, prolly haven't either. The decision is not yours. It's their. On 9-11 and afterwards, working pretty close with some 18-24 years old, and reading what I'm reading about them and their peers now? I trust them in their decisions.

Someone back me up.... Petraeus said, "and your command will stand behind you."

God bless them all, with their strengths, their blemishes, their thoughts of right and wrong, and their souls.... We got to do what is right for them..... They deserve only our purest thoughts for them. They hold our souls in their hands.

I prolly should read this again, before posting, but what the hell? I lived with my friends, my high school buddies, my first love, even later, boyfriends back from the Nam Days, and it still hurts me deep down inside what they faced.

Lucky for me, on Memorial Day weekend, I got to be back in the home town.... for "Old Days" that started with the colors being presented, the Pledge of Allegiance, and then, as the songs of each of the services were played, vets and friends and family, stood, fists pumping into the air.... proud of all who had served. It was that day, I came to realize, more of my high school graduating class had been deeper involved in the Nam, than I had ever known..... and there were only 32 of us.

I know, that lots of that top command structure is from my class. And I smile, each time, I read or see something, that these 18-35 year old, are smilingly, putting us in our place. They are, truly... living up to that Greatest Generation. And there will be, a new title for them, that history will give to them, that is worthy of what they are doing.

Don't touch any of Pappy's Misguided Children, or any of their friends. And that comes from, a long time widow of a Marine that is now guarding for the blessed, the corner that has the best steaks and bourbon to be found, anywhere!

God Bless -- and rain or not... my flag is flying early on the morning of July 4th (my neighbor with a young Marine in the Anbar, already has his up.)

Posted by Sherry">Sherry 2007-07-03 22:12|| 2007-07-03 22:12|| Front Page Top

#27 I personally believe in disproportionate force and so do the arabs because they understand it. Our govt is still lost in the sauce when it comes to really understanding our enemy.

Bingo.

"This perverse view of war holds that fighting selfishly to defend your own freedom by defeating enemies is wrong; but fighting to selflessly serve the needs of others is virtuous. "

Sounds like Dr. John David Lewis:

Altruism leads to the same conclusion. To fight for our own benefitto elevate our lives over those of our enemiesis almost universally condemned today as selfish and thus immoral. A moral war, according to altruism, is a war fought self-sacrificially, for the good of others, especially for the weak. It is only by a continuous policy of aiding others that we can rise to moral goodness. Even restrained, limited military action is wrong, if taken for our own benefit. In this view, a strong power is good only when it recognizes the moral claims of those in needeven enemies and their supporters. The route to peace is not through victory, since altruism (otherism) cannot abide the defeat of others. The path to tomorrow is through the sacrifice of our own wealth, values, and lives to the needs of otherseven those who threaten us. Again, their freedom must be our goaltheir prosperity must be our missionif we wish to be good.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-07-03 23:47|| 2007-07-03 23:47|| Front Page Top

23:53 3dc
23:52 Super Hose
23:50 Eric Jablow
23:49 Barbara Skolaut
23:49 Super Hose
23:47 Zenster
23:45 Ulavise Scourge of the Antelope7037
23:41 Pappy
23:40 trailing wife
23:38 Pappy
23:36 Super Hose
23:35 Super Hose
23:30 Pappy
23:29 Zenster
23:22 Zenster
23:12 JohnQC
23:08 Zenster
22:56 Mike N.
22:50 trailing wife
22:38 Broadhead6
22:37 wxjames
22:34 JohnQC
22:33 Mike N.
22:28 Broadhead6