The 5 Biggest Insults to American Manhood by the Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan
3. It Doesn’t Protect the Innocent
The first manly virtue is to protect the weak. Women and children first may be considered chauvinistic in some circles, but… good. Who cares about those circles, anyway? More from West in The Wrong War :
However, coalition and Afghan rules covering crime and punishment lacked purpose, consistency and reliability. A few kilometres south of Jakar, an 11-year-old boy often waved at passing patrols. The Marines took to chatting with the boy, who pointed out a trail the Taliban occasionally used. A few weeks later, the Taliban executed him and his brothers, sisters, mother and father. Although shocked neighbours knew the identities of the gang that had gone to the farm in the middle of the day, no one would testify.
The tragedy illustrated a disquieting truth: American military doctrine didn’t know how to confront evil. On the one hand, the Taliban were portrayed as extremists who stoned women to death, burned schools and whipped men. On the other hand, the generals indicated that most Taliban were misguided youths.
“In the Taliban ranks,” Gen. Stanley McChrystal said, “there’s a tremendous number of fighters and commanders who would like to come back in.” Among the fighters who might come back in were the local Taliban farm boys who murdered the 11-year-old and his family. The American military and judicial systems were so tied up in political knots that in Afghanistan there were no coalition trials for murderers or terrorists. If they renounced the insurgency, the coalition would give them jobs.
Worse, Afghans as a society denied that fellow Afghans were capable of evil. The locals knew the killers. But there was no penalty for murder if committed in the name of Islam.
(By the way, the above quote is worth considering before conservatives like Sean Hannity put McChrystal on a pedestal just because he is critical of Obama.)
Our only concern for the innocents in Afghanistan seems to be the politically motivated desire to avoid collateral civilian deaths. But by instituting the most restrictive rules of engagement since Vietnam, we have given the Taliban and al-Qaeda incentive to use human shields.
And by making American soldiers, Marines, and airmen stand around and let this happen, we murder their martial spirit, and ask them to be less than the men they are.
I read an article about some whining by Army brass, in a _Foreign Policy_ article, about how our killing by drone campaign in AfPak could not, by itself, produce victory in a “counterinsurgency campaign”. These guys are unhappy that war is about politics, and in particular that the US government responds to presssure from the American people to keep foreigners from killing us at home. 9/11 didn’t happen for them.
Sure it would be nice if President Obama and the Democrats would educate the public, and whining Army brass, about broader things than whack-a-jihadii. But we’re stuck with whack-a-jihadi while the ****ers keep coming after us.
The Army brass will be even more upset when the American people go full Jacksonian and give the Army’s budget to the Air Force for a more thorough and final solution to the jihadii question.
We shouldn’t be surprised. Just consider the best-seller “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten”. We in the United States are in the process of re-inventing the human being. We just neglected to send the Muslim World the memo!
(I almost said “We in the West”, but then I remembered France’s recent operations in Mali. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had some “Eric Sevareid” moments there too.
I’ve often wondered; what if Bush had gone Full-Postal at Tora Bora in December 2001 and used hundreds of Daisy-Cutters and earth penetrators?
“I’ve often wondered; what if Bush had gone Full-Postal at Tora Bora in December 2001 and used hundreds of Daisy-Cutters and earth penetrators?”
Got ol’ Bin Laden and a bunch of assorted Taliban and Al Qaeda nasties right then and there? Resounding victory, followed by only a nagging insurgency (banditry) most Afghans would find an annoyance? Nothing like decisive military action.
“…we will be gone and they will be on their ow.”
Definitely on their ow.
Afcrapistan is far more an insult to intelligence than to manhood.
A number of my high school teachers were Vietnam veterans (one special forces), or had served in other screw ups like Lebanon. They all said the same thing: the Rules of Engagement got in their way, cost lives and contributed to losing the engagements. The rules, they said, were written by generals concerned about their promotions and post-military careers, especially if they had political ambitions.
Today it is even worse. I’ve read that the Pentagon has some 20,000 lawyers who must approve of each little mission let alone broader policy. Practically every raid involving our troops has to have a lawyer to at the planning stage to make sure all manner of laws, particularly international laws, are followed to a T. I’m not saying that every patrol by troops in country is planned that way but you can bet that before they were sent forward every detail and every rule was sniffed by at least one lawyer.
During the build up to the Iraq invasion, a lot of folks I knew, particularly the military ones, were excited. I would tell them I thought it was a mistake because we didn’t have the ruthlessness to secure the peace once we beat Saddam. The enemy there quickly figured out our rules of engagement and how to use the press as a weapon. They have played us like a fiddle since. It was the same in Afghanistan.
Perhaps it’s time to send the lawyers overseas, attach them to infantry squads and make them walk point. After 6 months of doing that – if they survive – then they can write the rules of engagement.
I had always thought along the lines of the Soviet penal battalions. Putting them on point would expose real soldiers to danger. Putting the lawyers and others in their own units with security detachments and now drones watching to make sure they did their job would be safer. But then, dropping them deep in enemy territory by themselves with bounties on their heads would be safer still.
It’s another Alinsky principle kicking us in the ass. He said something like “Force your opponent to play by his own rules.” We think of ourselves as the “good guys.” The left has us convinced that “good guys” never do anything “bad” – like hurting the enemy. Never mind Afghanistan, they have all but convinced us that fighting WWII was wrong. So we’re paranoid, paralyzed by self-doubt and second-guessing.
GREAT IDEA! It worked so well for the Russians and for the British during the Second Afghan War…I’m amazed we haven’t chosen your BRILLIANT strategy, Commander Keyboard. LOL!
Ah yes, the British and Russians cliche trying to pass itself off as hiatorical analysis. Try to keep up Mittens the collumn is AGAINST occupying ala those 2 colonialpowers.
A major factor in America’s : Afghan Experience, is that when the loony wimp promoters hear the term : “High Noon”:, they think about global warming. If you want the hearts and minds of those who would kill you, double tap and then gut them.