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

[Alvito]

Her son was more then aware of what he was getting himself into. She should respect his judgement and decisions to serve they way he did.

[IIamaKing]

Get rid of? Most certainly no, there needs to be some rules lest we become like them. Trim em up a bit and uncuff the hands of boys on the ground allowing them to act on eyes on threats and such? yes.

[Detritivores]

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.

There's a great reason that the morality of WW2 is nonexistent today, primarily that it was indefensible. If your evidence for our methods is that Dresden or Hiroshima was Super Awesome, I don't think you have a place in this conversation.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

see above...

[Adam Jensen]

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.

"We're not at war with you, but we're going to drop bombs at you and shoot your soldiers." -America post WWII.

[Vynny]

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.

Not that I agree with the guy you replied to completely, but there are a lot of cases where a quick massacre can result in less suffering and loss of life than a long drawn out war. For example, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 250,000 people while the Japanese had already killed 5,000,000 (5 million) throughout the course of WW2. Now, this isn't always the case, but it brought the war to an abrupt end at the cost of 250,000 lives while millions more would've died before we could've taken down Japan without attacking them with atomic bombs.

Now, the same might be said of the conflicts in the Middle East, had the USA used their full military might to crush the Afghani and Iraqi forces then perhaps they would feel that they can't win against the USA and order might have already been restored by now rather than ISIS taking over most of Iraq and us having to go back to war with Afghanistan after already defeating them.

- - - Updated - - -

There's a great reason that the morality of WW2 is nonexistent today, primarily that it was indefensible. If your evidence for our methods is that Dresden or Hiroshima was Super Awesome, I don't think you have a place in this conversation.

Perhaps you need a bit of a history lesson. The morality of WW2 was actually quite defensible, I mean, look at the military and civilian deaths for WW2



Notice something? The vast majority of civilian casualties were suffered by the Allies (USA, Britain, France, etc.) despite the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. I mean think about that, the axis powers killed 14.5 times the amount of civilians despite those acts of mass murder perpetrated by the Allies. I mean, can you really say that the actions taken by the allies in order to bring the war to an end as soon as possible were indefensible in face of the fact that 2 atom bombs and the bombing of a very populated city paled in comparison to the civilian death caused by the axis powers by that large of a margin? You're either incredibly naive about war or incredibly ignorant about what they were fighting against.

[Slant]

Source for that diagram?

Also, RoE isn't a new thing. Every army always had RoE. The whole point of being a professional soldier is that you do what you're told, not what you think you want to do. If you don't want to live with the risk, don't be a soldier. But if you are a soldier, perhaps educate your parents about your profession and the risk attached to it. There could be all kinds of reasons why you need to go through chain of command or make an insertion without an escort. Not all of them are stupid. And not all of them are public knowledge.

[Talgriv]

Source for that diagram?

Appears to be from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_...e-Piechart.png which quotes it as "self-made, using figures from World War II Casualties.

[Slant]

Appears to be from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_...e-Piechart.png which quotes it as "self-made, using figures from World War II Casualties.

So... Fuck knows what numbers are represented? I mean, if we count those 6 million Jews towards the Axis that is quite a big number... could be a bit misleading though, if you're talking about civilian deaths due to warfare.

[Talgriv]

Exactly that, yeah. Could be a total number of kills, could be only wartime kills. The war being what it was, it's a large variable to be uncertain on

[Daerio]

She's absolutely right. The rules of engagement being put in place in every conflict the US has been involved with since WW2 has been a travesty. Having to radio in for permission to return fire when you're being shot at? Yes, this is how our military has been operating since Korea.

We have absolutely no hope of winning the current war the way we're fighting it.

[Deleted]

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.

Yes its important to note here, that even if RoE's have problems, even in an extreme, like getting soldiers killed, the alternative might still be worse (strategically mind you, not in some wishy washy hippie way)
Because those aforementioned massacres, they might spurn more resistance.
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Wa...7IP1JM2#navbar
This is a pretty decent book on this topic.

[Slant]

She's absolutely right. The rules of engagement being put in place in every conflict the US has been involved with since WW2 has been a travesty. Having to radio in for permission to return fire when you're being shot at? Yes, this is how our military has been operating since Korea.

We have absolutely no hope of winning the current war the way we're fighting it.

Well no, but then, it's the people at home that are largely responsible for it. Remember all those napalm strikes in Vietnam? The US people freaked out over them and that's when the whole war business started to become a joke.

[Daerio]

Well no, but then, it's the people at home that are largely responsible for it. Remember all those napalm strikes in Vietnam? The US people freaked out over them and that's when the whole war business started to become a joke.

So you're saying my grandfather who was a Korean war vet was... incorrect... when told me stories about the rules of engagement in Korea?

Oh, alright then. I guess I'll take your word for it.

[Deleted]

She's absolutely right. The rules of engagement being put in place in every conflict the US has been involved with since WW2 has been a travesty. Having to radio in for permission to return fire when you're being shot at? Yes, this is how our military has been operating since Korea.

We have absolutely no hope of winning the current war the way we're fighting it.

Define victory.
Once you have done that, you will understand why the RoEs are the way they are.

[Slant]

So you're saying my grandfather who was a Korean war vet was... incorrect... when told me stories about the rules of engagement in Korea?

Oh, alright then. I guess I'll take your word for it.

What I'm saying is that Korea being Korea, it was Vietnam that made the US public go bonkers over atrocities of war. Not Korea. RoE existed as long as armies existed. But we're discussing bullshit RoE and those are most likely a response to the public outcry in the US whenever they see a baby killed. As stupid as that is. It's war, what do people suppose happens in war? It's not a paintball match, I know that much...

- - - Updated - - -

Define victory.
Once you have done that, you will understand why the RoEs are the way they are.

Victory in a war? Breaking the will of the opposing population, establishing utter domination and enslaving them until they realise the wrongs of their ways and start being productive members of the global community again.

[Hammerfest]

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.

Just the President, not "politicians."

But in general, I concur with your premise.

[AeneasBK]

IS that pie chart counting Russian deaths as Allied deaths (I mean, it isn't unreasonable to...)

Kinda makes your "USA France UK" line pretty fucking disingenuous though.

[Wildtree]

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.

She doesn't make a case against Obama, she is making a case against international law.
And no military leader in the USA would follow any order that violates this law.

[enragedgorilla]

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

What part exactly? The part where a Gold Star mom uses her sons death for a political "issue"?
or the part about wanting to change the rules of war/engagement?

Wanting a change is not a bad thing.
The powers that be need to look at the rules we put on our fighting personnel constantly, to make sure that they are not overly restrictive to the point of getting people (our side) killed and are not allowing wholesale butchering of "innocents" to take place.
If some one see's something wrong they should voice their issue and ask for change.

[May90]

What part exactly? The part where a Gold Star mom uses her sons death for a political "issue"?
or the part about wanting to change the rules of war/engagement?

Wanting a change is not a bad thing.
The powers that be need to look at the rules we put on our fighting personnel constantly, to make sure that they are not overly restrictive to the point of getting people (our side) killed and are not allowing wholesale butchering of "innocents" to take place.
If some one see's something wrong they should voice their issue and ask for change.

The part about abolishing RoE. Which would set the world back into medieval ages, when the only goal in combat was to defeat the opponent, and civilian casualties, as well as military casualties on one's side, weren't seen as a factor. Pretty much all modern armies have somewhat strict RoE, even armies in lawless African countries.

This is a very silly proposition, and I'm not surprised it being made on RNC, given what kind of statements have been made there so far...