Comments on: The NCOs Speak on Rules of Engagement http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/ News & Commentary on Warfare, Policy and Counterterrorism Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:39:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Herschel Smith http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-20982 Herschel Smith Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:05:50 +0000 http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-20982 <p>I usually don't like the comments to degrade to the level of personal attacks such as the ones in which Mr. Rentner engaged. But in this case it was instructive. Late in the game I come to find out some interesting facts. Mr. Rentner was and is a JAG-in-training.</p> <p>How very rich. In his comments above he is plying his trade as a JAG. Let's see. Three NCOs who collectively have a thousand times as much combat experience as Mr. Rentner versus Mr. Rentner, a JAG.</p> <p>The degradation of the comments into personal attacks now becomes clear. I'll side with the NCOs.</p> I usually don’t like the comments to degrade to the level of personal attacks such as the ones in which Mr. Rentner engaged. But in this case it was instructive. Late in the game I come to find out some interesting facts. Mr. Rentner was and is a JAG-in-training.

How very rich. In his comments above he is plying his trade as a JAG. Let’s see. Three NCOs who collectively have a thousand times as much combat experience as Mr. Rentner versus Mr. Rentner, a JAG.

The degradation of the comments into personal attacks now becomes clear. I’ll side with the NCOs.

]]> By: Tripp Williams http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-18562 Tripp Williams Thu, 17 May 2007 17:51:57 +0000 http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-18562 I have read all of the posts here and have to say this is a great discussion. I understand that there is a CNN factor, but that is irrelevant because even with restrictive rules of engagement, CNN will always try to make the military look bad as we have seen in Iraq; so, we might as well give them something to talk about. CNN should not be a factor in our military decisions. Currently it is and that is why things are going badly. As for "creating insurgents", that is also irrelevant once we decide to invade a country. We can't make military decisions based on the possibility of making anyone mad at us. I submit that fewer civilians would have died in this war and fewer insurgents created if the military had not been worried about offending anyone. We should be allowed to use overwhelming force as suggested by Amador line 43.Unfortunately, this will never happen under the current administration or any other administration in the foreseeable future. So, I think if we are going to shackle our military by not allowing them to blow up mosques, minarets, and Moqtada al-Sadr, we should pull out now and never invade another country again. Maybe just the occasional quick in-and-out like the first war with Iraq would be okay. I have read all of the posts here and have to say this is a great discussion.
I understand that there is a CNN factor, but that is irrelevant because even with restrictive rules of engagement, CNN will always try to make the military look bad as we have seen in Iraq; so, we might as well give them something to talk about. CNN should not be a factor in our military decisions. Currently it is and that is why things are going badly.
As for “creating insurgents”, that is also irrelevant once we decide to invade a country. We can’t make military decisions based on the possibility of making anyone mad at us. I submit that fewer civilians would have died in this war and fewer insurgents created if the military had not been worried about offending anyone. We should be allowed to use overwhelming force as suggested by Amador line 43.Unfortunately, this will never happen under the current administration or any other administration in the foreseeable future.
So, I think if we are going to shackle our military by not allowing them to blow up mosques, minarets, and Moqtada al-Sadr, we should pull out now and never invade another country again. Maybe just the occasional quick in-and-out like the first war with Iraq would be okay.

]]> By: Charlie Adams http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-15802 Charlie Adams Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:22:13 +0000 http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-15802 Thank you for the reports concerning the Haditha incident. The New York Times reporters devoted five columns to the Haditha incident with zero lines concerning Rules of Engagement. Why did the reporters not publish even the single page of ROE? Why did the reporters include so many atrocity details and exclude ROE? Pulitzer Prize at the expense of honorable United States Marines who were just performing their Marine Corp duty? Mothers, fathers, wives, brothers, sisters, children made to suffer so reporters receive recognition! How disgusting. Thank you for the reports concerning the Haditha incident. The New York Times reporters devoted five columns to the Haditha incident with zero lines concerning Rules of Engagement. Why did the reporters not publish even the single page of ROE? Why did the reporters include so many atrocity details and exclude ROE? Pulitzer Prize at the expense of honorable United States Marines who were just performing their Marine Corp duty? Mothers, fathers, wives, brothers, sisters, children made to suffer so reporters receive recognition! How disgusting.

]]> By: Martinez http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-15389 Martinez Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:10:41 +0000 http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-15389 The land of ROE is a terrorist paradise, that’s were they play and kill as many of us as they can. They need to take our brothers out of Leavenworth and let them fight. Guaranteed we’ll be home in a couple of months. The land of ROE is a terrorist paradise, that’s were they play and kill as many of us as they can. They need to take our brothers out of Leavenworth and let them fight. Guaranteed we’ll be home in a couple of months.

]]> By: Martinez http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-15366 Martinez Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:17:48 +0000 http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-15366 This is great my fellow grunts and pog's dissing the corrupt ROE. Yah! we finally have a voice. Kill em All! This is great my fellow grunts and pog’s dissing the corrupt ROE. Yah! we finally have a voice. Kill em All!

]]> By: Morgan Wilson http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-12604 Morgan Wilson Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:29:08 +0000 http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-12604 Rules of engagment only help the enemy. Having served in Vietnam I know how insane rules of engagement are. Imagine WW2 being fought with rules of engagement. It would have been a night mare to say the least. No war is winnable when restrictions (rules of engagment) are put upon those tasked to fight. The enemy does not have rules of engagement and niether should our troops. The war in Iraq is no different from Vietnam in that it is not possible to know who is friendly who is not. One cannot tell friend from foe simply by looking. Either our troops are free to fight this war to win and the Generals are free to execute the war in such a manner as to win without the interference of civilians in Washington who have no idea what ccombat is like or we will in the end lose just as we did in Vietnam. During Vietnam we where not allowed to win because of President Johnson and then Sec of Defence, Robert MacNamara micro management of the war. They put restrictions on how the war was to be fought. In the end, all America had to show for the years spent fighting in Vietnam is 58,000 dead and many MIA's. All in vain. Many say we did not loose in Vietman. I ask, what is the difference if one is defeated by arms or they simply turn tail and run as we did in Vietnam. This am afraid is what will happen again in Iraq. Rules of engagment only help the enemy. Having served in Vietnam I know how insane rules of engagement are. Imagine WW2 being fought with rules of engagement. It would have been a night mare to say the least. No war is winnable when restrictions (rules of engagment) are put upon those tasked to fight.

The enemy does not have rules of engagement and niether should our troops. The war in Iraq is no different from Vietnam in that it is not possible to know who is friendly who is not. One cannot tell friend from foe simply by looking.

Either our troops are free to fight this war to win and the Generals are free to execute the war in such a manner as to win without the interference of civilians in Washington who have no idea what ccombat is like or we will in the end lose just as we did in Vietnam.

During Vietnam we where not allowed to win because of President Johnson and then Sec of Defence, Robert MacNamara micro management of the war. They put restrictions on how the war was to be fought.

In the end, all America had to show for the years spent fighting in Vietnam is 58,000 dead and many MIA’s. All in vain.

Many say we did not loose in Vietman. I ask, what is the difference if one is defeated by arms or they simply turn tail and run as we did in Vietnam. This am afraid is what will happen again in Iraq.

]]> By: Theo Farrell http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-10915 Theo Farrell Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:34:55 +0000 http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-10915 Important and very useful to have discussion on ROEs - they are crucial to the conduct of COIN. I'm sure there is some truth to ROEs serving domestic political purposes - to protect the military back home against political fall-out from the conduct of the campaign. And, equally, because this is a war being waged by a professional army (albeit with a heavy burden falling on reservists and the national guard), the public are perhaps less atuned to the sacrifices being made by service personnel and their families (tho' I think this problem is far more acute in Britain than in the United States). All that said, adherence to clear ROEs serves campaign objectives, and so is in the interest of forces in the field. This is the point that is stressed time and again to Brit forces operating in Iraq. Because this is a COIN campaign, and the objective is WHAM, the tactical advantage of using overwhelming force must be weighed against the operational advantage of demonstrating restraint. As I understand it (from a briefing by the head of British Army legal service) the Brit ROE for Iraq is benchmarked against the criminal law of England and Wales, which permits lethal use of force in self-defence. The general view of British commanders is that the campaign is first and foremost about winning over Iraqis - indeed, it cannot be won by killing insurgents. Thus military logic, and not legal requirement or ethical nicely, is driving a cautious attitude to the deployment of lethal force. [Editorial comment: Thanks Theo.  I responded at the same time to both this comment and the one left at my article <a href="http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/02/13/rules-of-engagement-and-pre-theoretical-commitments/" target="_blank">Rules of Engagement and Pre-Theoretical Commitments</a>, HPS] Important and very useful to have discussion on ROEs - they are crucial to the conduct of COIN. I’m sure there is some truth to ROEs serving domestic political purposes - to protect the military back home against political fall-out from the conduct of the campaign. And, equally, because this is a war being waged by a professional army (albeit with a heavy burden falling on reservists and the national guard), the public are perhaps less atuned to the sacrifices being made by service personnel and their families (tho’ I think this problem is far more acute in Britain than in the United States). All that said, adherence to clear ROEs serves campaign objectives, and so is in the interest of forces in the field. This is the point that is stressed time and again to Brit forces operating in Iraq. Because this is a COIN campaign, and the objective is WHAM, the tactical advantage of using overwhelming force must be weighed against the operational advantage of demonstrating restraint. As I understand it (from a briefing by the head of British Army legal service) the Brit ROE for Iraq is benchmarked against the criminal law of England and Wales, which permits lethal use of force in self-defence. The general view of British commanders is that the campaign is first and foremost about winning over Iraqis - indeed, it cannot be won by killing insurgents. Thus military logic, and not legal requirement or ethical nicely, is driving a cautious attitude to the deployment of lethal force.

[Editorial comment: Thanks Theo.  I responded at the same time to both this comment and the one left at my article Rules of Engagement and Pre-Theoretical Commitments, HPS]

]]> By: dolphin http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-8965 dolphin Sat, 03 Feb 2007 08:39:06 +0000 http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-8965 [This comment is deleted for being completely incoherent - HS]  [This comment is deleted for being completely incoherent - HS] 

]]> By: Yankeemom http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-5309 Yankeemom Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:07:08 +0000 http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-5309 [...] Nevermind the Rules of Engagement our troops are held by. [...] […] Nevermind the Rules of Engagement our troops are held by. […]

]]> By: Dave N. http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-5140 Dave N. Thu, 28 Dec 2006 05:23:35 +0000 http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/#comment-5140 P. Jennings, comment 69, thank you for your service. It is true, as you say, that there are not infinite jihadis. There are not infinite numbers of any group of people. However, there are over 1.2 billion Islamic people, the group from which jihadis emerge, and their birthrate on average is higher than in many nominally "Christian" countries, namely the countries of Europe. The question is not whether there is an infinite number of them, of course there is not. The question is, is the pool of jihadis being depleted faster than new jihadis are being produced? If you claim that they are, please point the rest of us to some source of information that would support this claim. I am not one of those who thinks that our actions are "causing people to join the jihad" or similar nonsense. I'm simply trying to look at the demographics of the situation, and seeking hard data about it. P. Jennings, comment 69, thank you for your service. It is true, as you say, that there are not infinite jihadis. There are not infinite numbers of any group of people.
However, there are over 1.2 billion Islamic people, the group from which jihadis emerge, and their birthrate on average is higher than in many nominally “Christian” countries, namely the countries of Europe.
The question is not whether there is an infinite number of them, of course there is not. The question is, is the pool of jihadis being depleted faster than new jihadis are being produced? If you claim that they are, please point the rest of us to some source of information that would support this claim.
I am not one of those who thinks that our actions are “causing people to join the jihad” or similar nonsense.
I’m simply trying to look at the demographics of the situation, and seeking hard data about it.

]]>