Mother of slain Navy Seal politicizes death to call an end to RoE in US conflicts.

[death87]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...vy-seal-225779


“There is no adversary the U.S. military cannot defeat if we can unbind them from the restrictive, ludicrous rules of engagement they've been forced to fight under for the last seven years,” she said, in a speech at the RNC making a case against President Barack Obama’s foreign policy.

[May90]

Wouldn't expect any less from RNC... I'm surprised no one has proposed launching nukes at all adversaries yet!

[Skaiz]

Being a retired Marine who went to the middle east in 2004, rules of engagement are no joke and extremely scary. It got so bad at some times that even when being shot at, clearance needed to be given to engage. Another time we had a positive identification of a priority target that we couldn't do shit about. He was some head honcho that was calling the shots for the insurgents in that region. But us guys on the ground just had to watch him drive away through a scope cause our guys in charge were "busy" gaining appropriate clearance. Seeing as he said last 7 years those rules might have gotten worse? I don't pay attention to recent stuff like that cause it's comically depressing

[Independent voter]

There is a time when things get so out of hand you throw all the rules out the window. That time isn't now.

[Lady Dragonheart]

Rules of Engagement only work when your enemy follows them as well. Which is almost never. :|

[Endus]

There is a time when things get so out of hand you throw all the rules out the window. That time isn't now.

Seriously, I don't think people understand what that kind of state of war is like. The Western world hasn't seen that in decades. While the Gulf and Iraq wars cost a lot of money, in terms of actual manpower that had to be mobilized relative to the size of the nation, and the actual cost in soldier's lives, they were cheap, compared to the likes of Vietnam, let alone WWII.

Almost a "hobby war", to keep the troops busy and pursuing your interests, rather than a fight for your actual defense.

Edit: Note that this isn't an attack on veterans who served, for whom it's as real as any action would be. It's a statement on the greater impact on the nation itself.

RoE are why sometimes soldiers aren't allowed to interfere or protect their own citizens (or women or children in foreign nations) from getting massacred or raped.

I can fully understand why RoE need to go. They turn the military into pawns, defenseless pawns at the beck and call of politicians and solely politicians. It's very 'orwelian' in a way.

The alternative to the RoE preventing you from stopping those massacres is you causing those massacres, by throwing away the RoE and attacking targets based on poor intel or high emotions.

The military are pawns at the beck and call of politicians. That's literally the role of the Armed Forces. It's right there in the Oaths of Enlistment.

[Skaiz]

RoE are why sometimes soldiers aren't allowed to interfere or protect their own citizens (or women or children in foreign nations) from getting massacred or raped.

I can fully understand why RoE need to go. They turn the military into pawns, defenseless pawns at the beck and call of politicians and solely politicians. It's very 'orwelian' in a way.

I think you completely understand the situation. I have some stories I'd really rather not share about having the opportunity to seriously help people who needed it immediately. But orders are orders and interfering with issues that we don't have clearance for is a sure fire way for everyone involved to end up in jail.

[Goobadin]

Recent RoEs have been pretty restrictive. Perhaps a bit overdone. But getting rid of them? Absolutely not.

Personally we need to get police to follow the same RoE our troops did in AF/IQ. Its always bothered me troops in combat had tighter rules than US cops.

[Venant]

Seriously, I don't think people understand what that kind of state of war is like. The Western world hasn't seen that in decades. While the Gulf and Iraq wars cost a lot of money, in terms of actual manpower that had to be mobilized relative to the size of the nation, and the actual cost in soldier's lives, they were cheap, compared to the likes of Vietnam, let alone WWII.

Almost a "hobby war", to keep the troops busy and pursuing your interests, rather than a fight for your actual defense.

Edit: Note that this isn't an attack on veterans who served, for whom it's as real as any action would be. It's a statement on the greater impact on the nation itself.



The alternative to the RoE preventing you from stopping those massacres is you causing those massacres, by throwing away the RoE and attacking targets based on poor intel or high emotions.

The military are pawns at the beck and call of politicians. That's literally the role of the Armed Forces. It's right there in the Oaths of Enlistment.

Wouldn't it be better if we had to actually declare war before bombing another country? I mean, I know it sounds insane, but maybe we shouldn't be carrying out bombing campaigns in like a dozen different countries that we are not at war with.

[Paranoid Android]

Okay the only part I saw was the helicopter that was shot down had no escort? I don't know what that has to do with ROE? I did not know that Obama made up every military plan of every mission. Is she concluded that since it was Seal Team 6 that, the enemy knew who was in the helicopter for the reason of Bin Laden?

She then goes on about him playing golf, <insert G.W. Bush video talking about he does not care about Bin Laden, and watch me hit this golf ball>. Okay. I understand her frustration and lack of sympathy for her son on Obama's part. To resign?

Oh yeah. This is suppose to be the counter to Khizr Khan.

[Kaleredar]

Wouldn't it be better if we had to actually declare war before bombing another country? I mean, I know it sounds insane, but maybe we shouldn't be carrying out bombing campaigns in like a dozen different countries that we are not at war with.

That requires that congress plan a strategy and maintain constant supervision of a war effort, as only congress can declare war.

Bush's tenure in the middle east should have proven that that's not something they want to have to think about.

[Kapadons]

I think politicians should be able to say whether we go to war or not. Once they decide that we will, everything falls to generals and on down the line. This may be how it is now but I Personally have never been happy with the president being the commander, especially since some of them have never served in the military or even been to West Point. Yes I understand they have generals that guide them, but at the end of the day from one president to the next, things can change pretty drastically and not always for the better.

[Sunseeker]

Just because the rules make your life difficult isn't an argument to get rid of them. Lots of rules make everyone's lives difficult. Like traffic safety laws. We'd certainly get everywhere faster if we didn't have to follow speed limits or stay in our lane or stop at red lights. We'd also have a lot more dead people.

I'm down for re-evaluating any rule, ALL the rules. But if the end determination is that things have gotten better since the rule's implementation, then there should be some kind of moratorium on challenging the rules again for say, 10 years. But just throwing the rules out because it's easier to shoot first and ask questions later? That leads to bad things, like chemical warfare and nuclear weapons.

[ovm33]

I think the problem is that we are not really fighting to win, but fighting to not lose.

If you're fighting to win you fire bomb the cities - civilian casualties be damned. You MOAB their training / supply outposts - guess you shouldn't have built it next to a School. Sniper in a building - Artillery strike to level the block. The easiest way to win a war is to completely demoralize your opponent. Make the very thought of continuing the fight against you abhorrent. The only way to win is to break them.

(And before the bleeding hearts jump in and say this will only make them hate us more or create more terrorists... I present: Dresden / Hiroshima.)

If we're not willing to truly fight to win then we need to pull out. We aren't the World's Police Force. We aren't knights in shining armor. We're not the "good guys." We're a nation state with our own political interests / reasons for being there. It's high time we in the West sit back and ask ourselves WTF are we doing? Why are we continuing to fight the same war that has been fought for 1500 years..? But this time doing it with our hands tied behind our backs?

If it is truly in the West's interests to fight this war; then win it.

[Polyxo]

I think the problem is that we are not really fighting to win, but fighting to not lose.

If you're fighting to win you fire bomb the cities - civilian casualties be damned. You MOAB their training / supply outposts - guess you shouldn't have built it next to a School. Sniper in a building - Artillery strike to level the block. The easiest way to win a war is to completely demoralize your opponent. Make the very thought of continuing the fight against you abhorrent. The only way to win is to break them.

(And before the bleeding hearts jump in and say this will only make them hate us more or create more terrorists... I present: Dresden / Hiroshima.)

If we're not willing to truly fight to win then we need to pull out. We aren't the World's Police Force. We aren't knights in shining armor. We're not the "good guys." We're a nation state with our own political interests / reasons for being there. It's high time we in the West sit back and ask ourselves WTF are we doing? Why are we continuing to fight the same war that has been fought for 1500 years..? But this time doing it with our hands tied behind our backs?

If it is truly in the West's interests to fight this war; then win it.

That level of civilian cost in the pursuit of discouraging terrorism isn't justified, unless you believe that Americans/Europeans are somehow inherently more valuable than middle-easterners.

[Deleted]

I think the problem is that we are not really fighting to win, but fighting to not lose.

If you're fighting to win you fire bomb the cities - civilian casualties be damned. You MOAB their training / supply outposts - guess you shouldn't have built it next to a School. Sniper in a building - Artillery strike to level the block. The easiest way to win a war is to completely demoralize your opponent. Make the very thought of continuing the fight against you abhorrent. The only way to win is to break them.

(And before the bleeding hearts jump in and say this will only make them hate us more or create more terrorists... I present: Dresden / Hiroshima.)

If we're not willing to truly fight to win then we need to pull out. We aren't the World's Police Force. We aren't knights in shining armor. We're not the "good guys." We're a nation state with our own political interests / reasons for being there. It's high time we in the West sit back and ask ourselves WTF are we doing? Why are we continuing to fight the same war that has been fought for 1500 years..? But this time doing it with our hands tied behind our backs?

If it is truly in the West's interests to fight this war; then win it.

Yes, lets have a coalition of 40+ nations with each having their own agendas and interests in the region go apeshit total war mode, that sounds like the most sound battle plan to stabilize the region.

This war isn't about *winning* against ISIS, if it was, the war would have been over in 3 weeks, this war is about stabilizing a region that has been in constant conflict since WWI, read up on some history before you make such bold statements.

That level of civilian cost in the pursuit of discouraging terrorism isn't justified, unless you believe that Americans/Europeans are somehow inherently more valuable than middle-easterners.

Even if you where to believe that then it wouldn't work either, unless you're talking about commiting genocide against 800 million peoples, which wouldn't sit well with the rest of the world and would trigger WW3.

[Arcrin]

Being a retired Marine who went to the middle east in 2004, rules of engagement are no joke and extremely scary. It got so bad at some times that even when being shot at, clearance needed to be given to engage. Another time we had a positive identification of a priority target that we couldn't do shit about. He was some head honcho that was calling the shots for the insurgents in that region. But us guys on the ground just had to watch him drive away through a scope cause our guys in charge were "busy" gaining appropriate clearance. Seeing as he said last 7 years those rules might have gotten worse? I don't pay attention to recent stuff like that cause it's comically depressing

dont know about that but if you boots on the ground get positive ID on a wanted guy through any means (most likely binocs) in the danish forces you radio that and the captain on the ground 99% of the time orders to kill or pursuit. or you see a weapon on any guy that you even 1% in doubt could be an threat, you're pretty much cleared to shoot. normally you would tell your sergent over the radio first though unless its pointed at you. this how it works in the danish army.

insanely stupid to let an enemy get away because of a slow chain of command, you gotta put some trust into your boots even the colonel in a danish army listens to a private in a tough situation.

NATO forces are different though. but ISAF isnt NATO.

there are awkward RoE rules still though. like the white parachute/cloth difference. the worst that really happens that ive experienced is the enemy calling in civilian deaths and then proceeds to pack their weapons in coffins and relocate and funny enough every time that has happen we have been attacked by the same guys later in a new position with no actual civilian deaths. its hard to see the van drive away with their weapons knowing your friend might die soon cause of a stupid RoE rule.

[Shelly]

I think the problem is that we are not really fighting to win, but fighting to not lose.

If you're fighting to win you fire bomb the cities - civilian casualties be damned. You MOAB their training / supply outposts - guess you shouldn't have built it next to a School. Sniper in a building - Artillery strike to level the block. The easiest way to win a war is to completely demoralize your opponent. Make the very thought of continuing the fight against you abhorrent. The only way to win is to break them.

(And before the bleeding hearts jump in and say this will only make them hate us more or create more terrorists... I present: Dresden / Hiroshima.)

If we're not willing to truly fight to win then we need to pull out. We aren't the World's Police Force. We aren't knights in shining armor. We're not the "good guys." We're a nation state with our own political interests / reasons for being there. It's high time we in the West sit back and ask ourselves WTF are we doing? Why are we continuing to fight the same war that has been fought for 1500 years..? But this time doing it with our hands tied behind our backs?

If it is truly in the West's interests to fight this war; then win it.

Bringing up WW2 is a major false equivalency.

Soldiers at that time fought fewer engagements, were fighting an actual government and with the exception of the German Concentration Camps we all turned a blind eye to the other atrocities committed.

The rules are there for a reason and no, we aren't the good guys, but that doesn't mean we should go out of our way to be the bad guys either or that we should put our interests so far ahead that we pat a target on our back while telling ourselves what a good job we've been doing.

If you really want a WW2 solution to the middle east and northern Africa be prepared to swallow the trillions if not quadrillions of dollars required to make it happen. Not just regime change, but 20 to 30 years of structural and social improvements, America taking on massive responsibilities for the defense of the area (effectively being the world police you say we are not), creation of marketplaces for the goods needed to be created and truly massive social reforms of an almost colonialistic scale while still maintaining highest regard for regional history and traditions.

Because that's what we gave Germany and Japan. They lost but America paid to rebuild them and for the most part it paid off great, America sent steel, construction equipment and manpower all over europe and asia putting it back together. We entirely rebuilt Japan - though we were heavily helped by their generally well structured society. We rebuilt Germany and built Israel while doing it.

If we want the Middle East, Northern Africa and even the Central Americas and Mexico to have that same stability we'd need to do the same with every one of those regions. Unfortunately we're already hampered there by a legacy of colonialism and (for the Central Americas) us being the largest market for illegal drugs simply keeps their countries in a constant state of civil war.

[Gadion]

I think the problem is that we are not really fighting to win, but fighting to not lose.

If you're fighting to win you fire bomb the cities - civilian casualties be damned. You MOAB their training / supply outposts - guess you shouldn't have built it next to a School. Sniper in a building - Artillery strike to level the block. The easiest way to win a war is to completely demoralize your opponent. Make the very thought of continuing the fight against you abhorrent. The only way to win is to break them.

(And before the bleeding hearts jump in and say this will only make them hate us more or create more terrorists... I present: Dresden / Hiroshima.)

If we're not willing to truly fight to win then we need to pull out. We aren't the World's Police Force. We aren't knights in shining armor. We're not the "good guys." We're a nation state with our own political interests / reasons for being there. It's high time we in the West sit back and ask ourselves WTF are we doing? Why are we continuing to fight the same war that has been fought for 1500 years..? But this time doing it with our hands tied behind our backs?

If it is truly in the West's interests to fight this war; then win it.

I think you're confusing the situation with a real war. Sometimes you're engaged with a faceless enemy (you can't identify them, they're potentially everywhere and nowhere at the same time) and you can't just indiscriminately shoot around trying to get to them. In this scenario where you're acting against rogue forces, you use proportional force. The bomb-it-all approach isn't exactly practical, particularly considering that rogue agents may very well be active in your own cities too.
Terrorist in New York? Glass the place! Great solution

[EllissonWatson]

Oh yeah. This is suppose to be the counter to Khizr Khan.