Rules of Engagement Revisited
(September 24, 2009) | 
|
|
| Harlingen, Texas, September 22, 2009
-- Active duty military personnel, veterans and retirees
alike all expressed their outrage and distain for the
reported Rules of Engagement (ROE) that resulted in loss
of life to four United States Marines and nine of their
Afghan army allies. In a Taliban initiated ambush the
insurgents out-gunned the joint military unit and pinned
it to indefensible ground. The NATO advised Afghan force
was denied artillery support and did not receive close
air support for more than one hour after coming under
attack. By that time 13 lives had been forfeited because
of a politically motivated ROE that always favors the
insurgents.
Why was artillery support refused? Why were the
helicopter gun ships needed for close air support late?
Why did more Americans die? Many feel it is due to the
always politically orients Rules of Engagement, a war
fighting practice that is only rarely understood by the
general public, and is seldom clarified or accepted by
members of the military community.
One person voicing such an opinion is retired Marine
Corps Major Frank Stolz. This author and authority on
weapons of mass destruction points out that the ROE has
been a very controversial issue since before World War
II. He explains, “The original rules were formulated
through the League of Nations (1929 – 1946) and were
mainly written and approved by diplomats, lawyers, peace
advocates and many others appalled by the slaughter of
millions in World War I.” The actions of that war,
according to Stolz, “included the use of poison gases
and the destruction of entire cities through artillery,
naval gunfire bombardments and for the first time ever,
aerial bombardment, often times when the cities were
still filled with non combatant civilians.”
Those who formed the first “rules” included a few people
who had observed the horrors of war, but most were never
in or near the front lines. They formed their opinions
on the conduct of war from places of safety and comfort.
Though the League of Nations attempted to stem the
threat of wars, success was never seen. The first rules
they accepted were No shotguns in warfare; No
flamethrowers in warfare; No aerial bombing of inhabited
cities; Enemy and allied supply ships were to be stopped
at sea, the crews and personnel were then allowed to get
into lifeboats with sufficient food and water to reach
the nearest land, and then their ships would be sunk.
Says Stolz, ”these were but a few of the nonsensical
rules made up by pinstripe diplomats and lawyers.” As
history tells us, all parties engaged in combat followed
few of these rules.
The ROE we find practiced today will vary slightly from
one combat zone to another. It combines the old League
of Nation rules along with newer insufferable conditions
demanded by the United Nations and many of the European
countries. As Major Stolz points out the ROE was
intended for the conduct of warfare by uniformed
combatants. It was not created to deal with terrorists,
anarchists, insurgents and criminal elements all hiding
among the civilian populations. Stolz concludes by
observing, “Either through stupidity or a desire by some
to see us fail, we have now given terrorists who
indiscriminately bomb and harm innocent civilians, the
same “rights” afforded uniformed military combatants.
That, to me, is akin to allowing serial killers periodic
home leaves in order to get their heads straight.”
The retired military community seems to be angered by
the ROE now in place and how our government appears to
have little regard for the lives of our many troops now
in harms way. Says one veteran, “I believe we are
wasting lives in Afghanistan. It cannot be won without
taking out all extreme Islamic fundamentalists. The
Taliban are ruthless. They follow no rules, period! They
massacre at will. They are pure evil. How do we win
this? There is no way except massive casualties across
the board. It is a useless war and one our brave
soldiers should not be fighting.”
Marine retiree William Bloomfield write, “Having lived
through more than one tour in Vietnam, in spite of the
ROEs, it smells to me an awful lot like “de javu” all
over again. Politicians who haven't a clue in charge of
those who do. It is egos taking precedence over good
judgment and common sense.”
Master Sergeant John Clayton says he is an old Vietnam
combat veteran, who fought in that war during 1967 and
68. Clayton says, “There is no substitute for victory
and appeasement leads to defeat, as France found out in
World War II. Do our enemies have ROE other than to
defeat those who oppose them?” He notes they battle the
enemy “kill n any way they can and to hell with
humanitarian ROE that our government imposes on our
military for political and appeasement reasons.”
One soldier now on active duty, (we will call him Bob)
writes, “ I am scared every time I'm told to move into a
dangerous area. Most of us know we will receive little
support when things get hot. Nobody really seems to care
about us. If they did, they would make sure we had the
weapons and troops needed to protect ourselves and win
this thing.”
General Stanley McChrystal seems to have those same
feelings. He has requested more support troops and
equipment. He has requested thousands more troops and
sent the White House a detailed report of the situation
on the ground in Afghanistan. He says he needs this
support at once and if it doesn't come we could lose the
war. The report has been sitting on the President's desk
for almost a month and no action has been taken.
While all the political indecision continues, the ROE
remains in force. More soldiers and Marines will be sent
into impossible situations and asked to win without the
tools of combat needed to complete their tasks. More
calls for artillery will be made and denied. More calls
for air support will be made and delayed. More Americans
will die because of indecision and political cowardness
at home. | |
By
Thomas D. Segel
Tom@thomasdsegel.com
www.thomasdsegel.com
Copyright
2009
Comment on this article |
|
