POL-Rules of engagement

[BYU 14]

A good friend of mine is in the Marines and will be getting deployed to Iraq for his first tour in 4 weeks. After they were informed of the deployment his Battalion Commander advised them that they would have new rules of engagement to follow once there. Without going into a lengthy rant here are the two highlights.

1-Apparently Iraqi Citizens can carry up to an AK 47 and three ammo clips on them in public.

2-If someone points a gun at you, you are not allowed to fire unless they shoot directly at you first....A point was made that it has to be directly at you. Over your head or off to the side of your position does not qualify as a reasonable threat, which would allow use of deadly force in return.

Hopefully the frontline leaders will have enough common sense to ignore this Bullshit, which basically means you have to sacrifice one or more of your fellow Soldiers in order to fight back. I don't know where this latest brilliant strategy originated, but are you fucking kidding me?

We send Kids over there to fight a War that has been mismanaged for years and expect them to be targets instead of Soldiers.

[Bubba Wheels]

Just amazing! Send your 18 yr old kid to Iraq and any Iraqi on the street gets a free first shot before your kid can defend himself? Just doesn't get any stupider.

[WVUFAN]

It's because if they initiate a gun battle with some Iraqi with an AK, regardless of the circumstances, they'll be crucified for killing "innocents". Hell, some of the people on this board would be the first to call them to task for it.

It's complete crap. Again, there's FAR too much concern for the well-being or armed, dangerous Iraqi's instead of our soldiers.

[MrBigglesworth]

It's nice to see everyone here finally getting behind the idea that we need to leave Iraq.

[Poli]

You think that's weird? I was quoted three different rules of engagement before deploying to Africa last year.

#1. First day: Warning shots are NOT authorized. Shoot only if you intend to hit a target.

#2. Two days later: Who said that? Warning shots ARE authorized.

#3. Next day: What was she thinking? Warning shots aren't authorized!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

It's nice to see everyone here finally getting behind the idea that we need to leave Iraq.

Although I might be getting warmer to the idea of leaving sooner rather, at least with certain condition, I don't suggest you get too excited about that.

The conditions that some of us who might be at least closer ready to call it a wrap would want to see exacted seem pretty likely to leave you just as upset.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ardent enthusiast

You think that's weird? I was quoted three different rules of engagement before deploying to Africa last year.

#1. First day: Warning shots are NOT authorized. Shoot only if you intend to hit a target.

#2. Two days later: Who said that? Warning shots ARE authorized.

#3. Next day: What was she thinking? Warning shots aren't authorized!

That's technically only two.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ardent enthusiast

I was quoted three different rules of engagement before deploying to Africa last year.

Are you sure you weren't actually deployed by Sony?

[st.cronin]

I once had a first sergeant who told us, "keep in mind, when interpreting this roe, that ammo is cheap."

[Poli]

No, it was three different ROE briefs, which seemed like an incredible waste of time. Actually, anything that didn't involve my rifle I deemed a waste of time. The Navy made me sit down and go through computer training for everything that "taught" us later in South Carolina. Waste of time, people.


The ROEs all sounded the same and were rather...depressing.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

It's nice to see everyone here finally getting behind the idea that we need to leave Iraq.

It's nice to see you continuing to put words in peoples' mouths in an effort to keep the debate going, since the closest anyone above you said to anything like that was that the war had been mismanaged.

Blame this one on all the hyper-critical world press that looks for anything to bash Americans over. It's like back in the good ol' days of the Palestinian / Israeli conflicts when the press and world opinion did not understand that a rock, especially one fired from a sling, is a deadly weapon.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Are you sure you weren't actually deployed by Sony?

classic

[BYU 14]

Dola
I will actually be seeing my friend tonight as he is on leave and we are having a get together....it will be very bittersweet knowing what he will be walking into in just over a Month.

I didn't intend to start a debate over leaving Irag ASAP, though I wish all the Men and Women were home. My point was if we have to be there we need to give our troops a chance to defend themselves adequately. To me nobody pointing an AK 47 in your direction is an innocent.

Another part of our conversation I did not like hearing was the scuttlebutt in his unit that many of the brass are fearful that before Bush leaves office we could also be involved in Military conflict with Iran and North Korea. I know both are possibilities, but there is no way in hell our Military could handle this, especially if these scenarios did occur and were conducted in the same fashion as Iraq/Afghanistan.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Are you sure you weren't actually deployed by Sony?

Beautiful

SI

[JPhillips]

The problem is that we can't provide security so the religious leaders and some government leaders are telling Iraqis to arm themselves to provide their own security. Given that, we can't have rules of engagement that include shooting armed civilians.

The rules of engagement are merely the outward symbols of the inherent problems with this occupation.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Given that, we can't have rules of engagement that include shooting armed civilians.

We most certainly can.

First and foremost should be the protection of our troops. When everyone on the street may/is armed, you don't wait for them to shoot first. That's just idiotic.

[JPhillips]

I agree, but the problem isn't the rules of engagement, it's the mission. If the Iraqi people are told to arm themselves and we shoot everyone who's armed, what are we accomplishing? We'll probably have fewer casualties, but our mission of securing Iraq will be farther from success.

The rules of engagement don't drive policy. Policy drives the ROE.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The rules of engagement don't drive policy.
Policy drives the ROE.

Problem is, common sense isn't driving the policy where the ROE is concerned.

It's not the first time in US history that's been the case, it won't be the last, but it's definitely one of the latest.

[Glengoyne]

If this accompanies a shift from combat to training, and a shift from urban deployments to border security, then I have no problem with it.

Otherwise, it really isn't setting a fair expectation for our troops. The last thing we should be doing is instilling doubt when it comes to self defense.

That said, I have no trouble with telling the Iraqi Civilians that they can carry weapons for self defense. Hell I say we give them AK 47s. In my opinion, any Iraqi that doesn't already have an assault rifle, should be considered an upstanding citizen. We should encourage them to protect themselves, since we really aren't able to accomplish that task.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

We most certainly can.

First and foremost should be the protection of our troops. When everyone on the street may/is armed, you don't wait for them to shoot first. That's just idiotic.

Shouldn't doing what is necessary for the mission to succeed be first? It may be that our mission will more likely succeed if we blast everyone with an AK, or it may be that doing that only strengthens the insurgents. In any case the decision should be evaluated based on mission objectives first, troop safety second..

If protecting our troops is really first and foremost, you should never send them into a combat zone.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Shouldn't doing what is necessary for the mission to succeed be first? It may be that our mission will more likely succeed if we blast everyone with an AK, or it may be that doing that only strengthens the insurgents. In any case the decision should be evaluated based on mission objectives first, troop safety second..

If protecting our troops is really first and foremost, you should never send them into a combat zone.

There's a world of difference between blasting anyone with an AK, and not being able to adequately defend yourself against a potential agressor.

And although I'm sure the military holds the same opinion as you in regards to the mission being more important than the troops, but I don't. Still, you have to provide the troops the ability to defend themselves.

If an "armed citizen" points a weapon at a soldier, to me, he ceases to become a "citizen" and becomes an insurgent. You don't wait for him to fire the first shot.

[JPhillips]

But the fact is that some, if not most, aren't insurgents. It doesn't help our mission to shoot these people. I agree it's insane to put our troops in this position, but the answer is changing the mission, not changing the ROE.

[st.cronin]

One of the problems I see with that roe is that its not especially simple. Roes ideally should be very easy to understand in the field, because you don't want soldiers thinking "hmmm, should I shoot or not?." I'm thinking that particular one might not be so easy to interpret. Also, it has more than a little bit of flavor of cya from the higher-ups.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But the fact is that some, if not most, aren't insurgents. It doesn't help our mission to shoot these people.

I'm sorry, if you are an Iraqi with an AK-47 points it at a soldier, they cease to be an innocent Iraqi citizen.

[JediKooter]

Kinda reminds me of:
Gorman: Apone! Look... we can't have any firing in there. I, uh... I want you to collect magazines from everybody.
Hudson: Is he fuckin' crazy?
Frost: What the hell are we supposed to use man? Harsh language?

[BYU 14]

There is a huge difference between firing at someone carrying an AK 47 and firing at someone pointing it at you. I have no problem if they are armed, but when they level their weapon at you there is bad intent....At that point the safety of the troops does come first.

We allow Citizens here to bear arms, hell in AZ some people roll around with a holster on their hip, it's legal so no problem. But, if one of those people draw their weapon and point it at a Police Officer, then they are demonstrating bad intent and the Officer can draw his weapon and take necessary action....the concept really isn't that different.

[JPhillips]

I'm not trying to argue in favor of these rules. My point is that our overall policy has put us in this position and changing the ROE will only lead us farther away from our policy goals.

[Poli]

All I'm saying is, after every ROE brief (and there were more after the first three out in Africa) I'd think, "Man, if it ever hits the fan, I'm screwed either way."

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

A good friend of mine is in the Marines and will be getting deployed to Iraq for his first tour in 4 weeks. After they were informed of the deployment his Battalion Commander advised them that they would have new rules of engagement to follow once there. Without going into a lengthy rant here are the two highlights.

There's the problem, right there. My brother's entire Guard unit ignored pretty much everything from the Battalion Commander once it became abundantly clear that he had absolutely no idea what he was talking about.

Hopefully the frontline leaders will have enough common sense to ignore this Bullshit, which basically means you have to sacrifice one or more of your fellow Soldiers in order to fight back. I don't know where this latest brilliant strategy originated, but are you fucking kidding me?

Simple rule: If they stay in the FOB all day (which described pretty much all the officers at Camp Ramadi when my brother was there) then you ignore what they say as much as you can. If they go out on patrol on a regular basis, then they're much more likely to use common sense.

Tell your friend that the most dangerous time is the first few weeks, when the officers are out on patrol and a) don't know what they're doing and b) are still trying to stick to the rules. After that, it gets better because the officers either a) die, b) stop going out on patrol or c) get some common sense.

Or your friend could get lucky and get a seasoned officer (like my co-worker, a now-retired Marine Captain who led two tours in the same area) who already knows how things work.

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Also, it has more than a little bit of flavor of cya from the higher-ups.

That's pretty high on the list of complaints I've heard from folks coming back from Iraq: the "rules" are mostly there to protect the officers, not the soldiers.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

There's a world of difference between blasting anyone with an AK, and not being able to adequately defend yourself against a potential agressor.

Exactly, and the difference is clear to any seasoned soldier using common sense.

[JW]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

There's a world of difference between blasting anyone with an AK, and not being able to adequately defend yourself against a potential agressor.

And although I'm sure the military holds the same opinion as you in regards to the mission being more important than the troops, but I don't. Still, you have to provide the troops the ability to defend themselves.

If an "armed citizen" points a weapon at a soldier, to me, he ceases to become a "citizen" and becomes an insurgent. You don't wait for him to fire the first shot.

You have good points. We have hamstrung our troops with strict ROE nearly from the start, trying to fight and win a politically correct war. And the soldiers know they may be crucified for violating the ROE to defend their own lives or the lives of their comrades. That creates doubt and hesitation, which can kill soldiers.

What we've really been trying to do since the invasion is to use the very least force possible and to do barely enough to keep order. We had too small a total force to begin with (less than half the total force we had during Desert Storm when we didn't try to occupy the country) and we have used that too small force, with a few exceptions, in a way that minimized rather than maximized its influence and hold over the country. At the same time the operational tempo has placed significant strains on the force, particularly the Army. That can all be placed entirely at Bush's feet.

It has been botched badly.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by JW

We have hamstrung our troops with strict ROE nearly from the start, trying to fight and win a politically correct war.

Seriously, is there anything that can't be blamed on political correctness?

I was jogging yesterday and I almost got hit by a car. Damn PC drivers.

I think when you blame PC (a failed language reform movement 20 years ago that has no power or cultural force) for anything, it is a sign that your argument is really bad. I'm quite sure that PC has not informed the Bush administration's decisions in any way regarding this war.

The Bush administration after the AUMF has, on its own, invaded Iraq, set the goals for that invasion, choose the means of occupation after the initial invasion, has continually set the policies and rules governing the conflict, and has set the rules of engagement. Yet, PC is to blame. Brilliant!

[JW]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Seriously, is there anything that can't be blamed on political correctness?

I was jogging yesterday and I almost got hit by a car. Damn PC drivers.

I think when you blame PC (a failed language reform movement 20 years ago that has no power or cultural force) for anything, it is a sign that your argument is really bad. I'm quite sure that PC has not informed the Bush administration's decisions in any way regarding this war.

The Bush administration after the AUMF has, on its own, invaded Iraq, set the goals for that invasion, choose the means of occupation after the initial invasion, has continually set the policies and rules governing the conflict, and has set the rules of engagement. Yet, PC is to blame. Brilliant!

I disagree, but that's okay.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

You have good points. We have hamstrung our troops with strict ROE nearly from the start, trying to fight and win a politically correct war. And the soldiers know they may be crucified for violating the ROE to defend their own lives or the lives of their comrades. That creates doubt and hesitation, which can kill soldiers.

What we've really been trying to do since the invasion is to use the very least force possible and to do barely enough to keep order. We had too small a total force to begin with (less than half the total force we had during Desert Storm when we didn't try to occupy the country) and we have used that too small force, with a few exceptions, in a way that minimized rather than maximized its influence and hold over the country. At the same time the operational tempo has placed significant strains on the force, particularly the Army. That can all be placed entirely at Bush's feet.

It has been botched badly.

Couple questions:

1) 'PC' is a term associated with liberals, and I think in this context everyone can agree that the idea that we should have been tougher on the Iraqi's all along is a more 'conservative' view. You seem to be saying that it is Bush's fault that the war was done in a 'PC' (ie, liberal) manner. Does that mean that the ultimate problem was that Bush was too liberal, or that he was listening too much to the liberals?

2) Assume every 'PC' rule was never implemented. US soldiers are authorized to shoot anything that they deem to be a threat to their safety. How is our new fantasy Iraq better than the real Iraq? While our troops may be safer, I don't see how it wins the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people (which counterinsurgency theory says we need to do to succeed) if they have to worry even more about being shot by friendly troops. If our troops are safer, but not completing the mission anyway, wouldn't they be better off at home?

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Couple questions:

1) 'PC' is a term associated with liberals, and I think in this context everyone can agree that the idea that we should have been tougher on the Iraqi's all along is a more 'conservative' view. You seem to be saying that it is Bush's fault that the war was done in a 'PC' (ie, liberal) manner. Does that mean that the ultimate problem was that Bush was too liberal, or that he was listening too much to the liberals?

2) Assume every 'PC' rule was never implemented. US soldiers are authorized to shoot anything that they deem to be a threat to their safety. How is our new fantasy Iraq better than the real Iraq? While our troops may be safer, I don't see how it wins the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people (which counterinsurgency theory says we need to do to succeed) if they have to worry even more about being shot by friendly troops. If our troops are safer, but not completing the mission anyway, wouldn't they be better off at home?

I knew B would jump on my post. He has a thing about me.

I'm getting ready to leave on a vacation, so I have to apologize in advance that I cannot get into an endless discussion of this in which B will as usual accuse me of saying things I didn't say.

Here first is a very brief reply to to Mr. Galt.

I indeed think there is a belief that we can somehow fight a politically correct war in which American troops never shoot first, never accidentally kill civilians, and never make mistakes, a zero defects kind of war. I think that idea helps drive our rules of engagement in Iraq. That is what I mean by fighting a politically correct war, and I think that idea sometimes hamstrings our troops.

Now to B's comments.

1. I did not say we should have been "tougher on the Iraqis." I think we should have been tougher on combatants fighting against us from the very start. I think that would have shown the Iraqi people that we are tough and committed. This was manifested in the first retreat from Fallujah, which resulted only in a stronger Fallujah when we finally did attack it.

As for political correctness, it comes in all varieties, though history will remember it as an invention of the left.

As for Bush, he probably listened to Rove. Rove knows how to win elections but not how to run a country or a foreign policy or a war. As you know, I think the country is worse today because of Karl Rove, even if he didn't out secret agent Valerie Plame. Bush really has no discernable political philosophy.

2. About the hearts and minds theory, I think in Iraq what we may see as restraint may be seen as weakness on the part of a very tough people used to hardships and a brutal way of war.

As to your last point, I think we are past the time when we should pull our troops off the streets and get them out of immediate danger. We botched things terribly after taking the country. We tried to win on the cheap when a massive effort was needed. We finally made a greater effort when it was too late politically.

At this point the country has grown weary of the effort, and the only question seems to be whether we are going to retreat immediately or do a more orderly withdrawal from frontline action while leaving a force in Iraq to train Iraqi forces and to act as some kind of fuzzy deterrent to Iran. Faced with those two choices, I vote for the latter. But since it seems that we are going to withdraw one way or the other, let's not leave the troops on the front line another day.

Unfortunately, a retreat will reinforce in the minds of the Islamists that America is weak and can be defeated if you are willing to just keep hitting them long enough. But we'll just have to deal with that.

Too bad we didn't partition the country three years ago and start pulling out right then. I've been in favor of partition for some time. Call it a federal system or whatever you want.That creates its own set of problems, but it might be better than the current situation.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JW

As you know, I think the country is worse today because of Karl Rove, even if he didn't out secret agent Valerie Plame.

Gotta love the drop in, particularly in a thread not at all about this. Just sayin'

SI

[JW]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Gotta love the drop in, particularly in a thread not at all about this. Just sayin'

SI

You're probably correct in this case. B's post to me was not his typical REDACTED, so I apologize. But I really am still waiting for Armitage to be prosecuted.

Back to the subject, here are a couple of cut and paste things about the politically corrrect war in Iraq. I find the first one particularly interesting because it dates from 2003 and gives a hint of what is to come.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0326/p11s02-coop.html

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10182006...lph_peters.htm

And I am not suggesting that the only choices are ROE so restrictive that they endanger the troops or ROE that allow the troops to shoot anything in sight.

Oh, yeah, forgot to say. I'm outa here for a few days effective now, thus my lack of further response to B.

[larrymcg421]

The ROE is certainly ridiculous, but the even bigger concern is that even with such a restrictive ROE we've still had some unfortunate incidents where innocent civilians were slaughtered. Fixing the ROE isn't going to change things much if some soldiers aren't going to follow it no matter what.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Gotta love the drop in, particularly in a thread not at all about this. Just sayin'

SI

I kinda thought that about JPhillips trying to overextend the scope of the original post to critize the Iraq policy again. While the Plame reference is certainly less relevant to this thread than the overall Iraq policy of this administration, I still thought it was overstepping the bounds abit to try to draw us all into another GO BUSH/HATE BUSH Iraq thread, a habit I have seen too often from our more liberal board members, who never cease to despise everything related to Bush. And frankly, I am tired of that sorta thread, since it's been repeated ad nauseum here for at least five years (and seven of the last eight if you take out around the latter half of 2001 and start of 2002, when W got an understandable pass).

Honestly, is it so hard to just discuss the specifics of the new ROE and its strengths and faults without getting drawn into yet another divisive argument about the overall Iraq policy?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JW

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10182006...lph_peters.htm

I like the 2006 in Pictures ad. It looks like aliens are attacking New York.

SI

[JPhillips]

Chief: The ROE are specifically tied to the policy. These ROE have developed out of a situation where we haven't provided security, but are also trying to bring together two warring sects into a peaceful government. If the country were more secure we wouldn't have a populace that's armed to the teeth and, hence, we wouldn't have the problem we have with these ROE.

These ROE don't come unattached from everything else.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Honestly, is it so hard to just discuss the specifics of the new ROE and its strengths and faults without getting drawn into yet another divisive argument about the overall Iraq policy?

Actually, I don't think it's a new ROE, to be honest.

Maybe JW phrased himself badly, but I think what he was contending is that there's there's some sort of pressure from public perception (both U.S. and the world) that results in ROEs like this.

I'd argue that a lot of people are inclined to think that this pressure comes from liberals (i.e. the "PC" crowd - though I'm not sure if JW was implying just that, to be honest). I think this mentality stems from Vietnam where the liberal side of the U.S. was the early anti-war side and, critically, repeatedly brought up incidences of the misuse of force in their arguments.

I'd further argue, however, that this isn't the case anymore. Yes, liberals are still pretty anti-war (and definitely anti-this-war), but I'd argue that the idea that U.S. forces can accomplish their mission objectives under these types of restrictive ROEs actually comes from the conservative/Tom Clancy crowd. Bear with me on this. There's a section of the U.S. populace that has come to believe that our Armed Forces have such a technological advantage in today's combat theater that there's less reason than ever for collateral damage. This group, importantly, point to Desert Storm as the shining exemplar of their argument.

In fact, I'd claim Rumsfeld, he of the "you go to war with the army you have", to be of this camp. Prior to Iraq, Rumsfeld was re-making the Armed Forces to be smaller, more capable, and quicker to react. Along a Tom Clancy model, one could argue. And perhaps this was the correct way to reshape the Armed Forces, especially if one espoused a foreign policy that did not include "nation-building".

Ironically, it's the "liberal" movement now where I think you'll hear the most strident voices for non-restrictive ROEs. Obviously I've had a lot of opportunity to talk to these folks (some would argue I'm one of them myself). Those of us on this end of the spectrum, and especially those of us with friends and/or loved ones who have served, now argue, and have argued since 2002, that war is hell, lots of people (innocent and not) get killed in war, and that our men & women should have every protection available to them.

And I think most people will find this has been consistent. The anti-war crowd was against Iraq, in part, because we argued that so many people, especially innocent people, would die. But the counter-argument to this was that it would be a "clean" operation, and be over quickly. We knew who the enemy was, and could eliminate him.

Then there was all the clamor about the underequipped troops, unearthed by the "liberal" press and championed by this side of the spectrum, again, as evidence that we were unprepared. You'll note that it was largely Democratic Senators & Reps who got Congress moving on this. But, again, the counter-argument was that "our boys" were OK, again, due to this massive technological advantage.

Anyway, I don't want to belabor the point (further), but I do find this interesting, to be honest. In my mind the anti-war crowd has gone from a categorical anti-war stance (in the 60s/70s) by abhoring violence of any kind, in any situation, to arguing against war because it isn't as "clean" as the Tom Clancy crowd (who got a huge push with Desert Storm) would have us believe. This carries, I think a tacit admission that, in fact, some wars are worth fighting for the price but, obviously, this one isn't.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Chief: The ROE are specifically tied to the policy. These ROE have developed out of a situation where we haven't provided security, but are also trying to bring together two warring sects into a peaceful government. If the country were more secure we wouldn't have a populace that's armed to the teeth and, hence, we wouldn't have the problem we have with these ROE.

These ROE don't come unattached from everything else.

Your comment about this being just an outward symbol of the problems inherent with the occupation is an obvious attempt to draw us again into that larger discussion. I would rather not see this thread or other similar threads get hijacked in that manner, becasue it always results int he same sorts of discussions between the same people saying the same things they have been saying since 2003.

I think it's much more relevant to stick to the specifics of this ROE, and yes, I do believe your last comment takes away from the specific discussion at hand.

[JPhillips]

This problem is typical in insurgency battles. It certainly isn't unique to Iraq in any way. When the population feels insecure and the insurgents are indistinguishable from the population, there is an obvious problem with ROE. I'm just pointing out that this problem with ROE doesn't exist in a vacuum. It didn't spring from the mind of a general in isolation. Wherever these rules originated, they are designed to keep us from alienating the population more than they already are. They put our troops in an impossible position because previous policy decisions have left us in a situation where we are trying to pacify a well-armed, motivated, and easy concealed insurgency based primarily in large population centers.

And you're completely wrong in saying I wished to hijack this thread. I'm just trying to point out that ROE don't exist separate from a nation's larger policy goals. I'll back out now and let you hold the battlefield unopposed.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by JW

I indeed think there is a belief that we can somehow fight a politically correct war in which American troops never shoot first, never accidentally kill civilians, and never make mistakes, a zero defects kind of war. I think that idea helps drive our rules of engagement in Iraq. That is what I mean by fighting a politically correct war, and I think that idea sometimes hamstrings our troops.

So when you talk about political correctness, you must be talking about those dreamers who wrote the Army counter-insurgency handbook, like David Petraeus, and wrote things like this:

Any use of force generates a series of reactions. There may be times when an overwhelming effort is necessary to intimidate an opponent or reassure the populace. But the type and amount of force to be applied, and who wields it, should be carefully calculated by a counterinsurgent for any operation. An operation that kills five insurgents is counterproductive if the collateral damage or the creation of blood feuds leads to the recruitment of fifty more.

Any use of force produces many effects, not all of which can be foreseen. The more force applied, the greater the chance of collateral damage and mistakes. It also increases the opportunity for insurgent propaganda to portray lethal military activities as brutal. The precise and discriminate use of force also strengthens the rule of law that needs to be established.

Often an insurgent carries out a terrorist act or guerrilla raid with the primary purpose of enticing the counterinsurgent to overreact, or at least to react in a way that can then be exploited. If a careful assessment of the effects of a course of action concludes that more negative than positive effects may result, an alternative should be considered—potentially including a decision not to act.

Counterinsurgents achieve the most meaningful success by gaining popular support and legitimacy for the host government, not by killing insurgents. Security plays an important role in setting the stage for other progress, but lasting victory comes from a vibrant economy, political participation, and restored hope. Often dollars and ballots have a more important impact than bombs and bullets. Soldiers and Marines

When COL Harry Summers allegedly told a North Vietnamese counterpart in 1975 that “You know you never defeated us on the battlefield,” the reply supposedly was, “That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.” Military actions by themselves cannot achieve success in COIN. Tactical actions must not only be linked to operational and strategic military objectives, but also to the essential political goals of COIN. Without those connections, lives and resources may be wasted for no real gain.

Ethically speaking, COIN environments can be much more complex than conventional ones. Insurgency is more than combat between armed groups; it is a political struggle with a high level of violence intended to destabilize and ultimately overthrow a government. COIN forces using excessive force to limit short-term risk alienate local residents. In doing this, they deprive themselves of the support or tolerance of the populace. This situation is what the insurgents want. It increases the threat they pose. Sometimes lethal responses are counterproductive. At other times, they are essential. The art of command includes knowing the difference and directing the appropriate action.

A key part of any insurgent’s strategy is to attack their domestic and international opposition’s political will. One of the insurgents’ most effective means to undermine and erode political will is to portray their opposition as untrustworthy or illegitimate. These attacks are especially effective when insurgents can portray the opposition as unethical by their own standards. To combat these efforts, Soldiers and Marines treat noncombatants and detainees humanely and in accordance with America’s values and internationally recognized human rights standards. In COIN, preserving noncombatant lives and dignity is central to mission accomplishment. This imperative creates a complex ethical environment that requires combatants to treat prohibitions against harming noncombatants as absolute. Further, it can sometimes require combatants to forego lethal solutions altogether. In practical terms, this consideration means that mission accomplishment sometimes obligates combatants to act more like police than warriors. That requirement imposes a very different calculus for the use of force.

Counterinsurgency is an extremely complex form of warfare—truly “war at the graduate level.” At its core, counterinsurgency warfare is a struggle for the support of the population. Their protection and welfare is the center of gravity for friendly forces.

Maybe the folks who write things like that are just flower-waving hippies and politically correct liberals. Or maybe, as the last quote suggests, they just recognize that counterinsurgency is more about politics than warfare and they're more dedicated to success than to blowing things up and killing people.

1. I did not say we should have been "tougher on the Iraqis." I think we should have been tougher on combatants fighting against us from the very start. I think that would have shown the Iraqi people that we are tough and committed. This was manifested in the first retreat from Fallujah, which resulted only in a stronger Fallujah when we finally did attack it.

2. About the hearts and minds theory, I think in Iraq what we may see as restraint may be seen as weakness on the part of a very tough people used to hardships and a brutal way of war.

But do you have any evidence at all for this theory? Because, when you watch something like this (and everyone who cares about Iraq should), it sure seems like use of massive force in both invasions of Fallujah hurt the US cause in Iraq. It was unfortunate to leave insurgents in Fallujah the first time, but if we hadn't pulled back it was not clear the Iraqi government could have withstood the political pressure. I don't see any indication that we would have generated more support through increased violence. The Army handbook seems to suggest the exact opposite of what you're saying as well.

Unfortunately, a retreat will reinforce in the minds of the Islamists that America is weak and can be defeated if you are willing to just keep hitting them long enough. But we'll just have to deal with that.

And what, exactly, do you think the past 4 years have shown the Islamists?