Tied by his commanders.What did he mean when he said his hands were tied and he couldn't fight the way he wanted? Any current or former soldier could probably shed some light on this.
2007-02-06 21:28:07 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
j smith,he was a soldier from Illinois(which is where I live) and according to his dad who was interviewed on the news,that was what he said.
2007-02-06 21:36:16 · update #1
I would assume that he was referring to the "Rules of Engagement" ( ROE ) that the military was subjecting him to. Many times, in many theaters of operations, the soldiers are restricted from attacking positions, firing offensively, or doing what common sense would dictate that you'd do to your enemies. Most of the soldiers are told that they cannot engage in any fight unless they are fired on first.
Well....let's see how that works. If you have to wait on someone to fire at you first.......what if the bullet hits you? Do you see what I mean? If the soldiers could fire on their enemies without these stupid rules, many soldiers would not be coming home in bags.
In the Air Force and Navy, pilots cannot strike random targets without a JAG ( Judge Advocate Generals Office...aka, a lawyer. ) giving them the authorization. Many opportune targets were missed due to this senseless delay.
Collateral damage- The government has knuckled under to the liberal news media and are now all worried about collateral damage. Pilots have to fly extra low and slow to place their ordinance on a target, at great risk to their personal safety. And this all due to a bunch of do-gooders who have no clue about military tactics. In World War II, bombers carpet bombed their enemies cities. That was the price that was paid when your enemy began a war with you. Nowadays, the media requires that war become sanitary, which it will never be, no matter how hard they beg. But restraints are being put on the troops to appease the idiots in the media, and on Capitol Hill. And it's costing lives of our soldiers, and unfortunately, this soldier from Ilinois was probably one of them. My prayers for his family go to God. And my deepest respect for his bravery and devotion to country.
Best wishes.
2007-02-06 21:52:43 · answer #1 · answered by C J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
During conflict the Chain of Commander sets out the Rules of Engagement (ROE) these rules define how and with what you may respond when threatened. ie you cannot shoot someone for yelling at you or throwing soft objects. You cannot use deadly force unless you are threatened with deadly force. These rules can be frustrating in places like Iraq.
They are meant to keep soldiers from over-reacting, but when you are the one out on patrol you can get the feeling that your hands are tied. As other soldiers do things that can cause an international incident or just plain illegal, like the marines that killed the family of and raped and killed that teenage girl, commanders can get very picky about the ROE.
Most soldiers want to go in do their combat job and complete the mission. When we are sent in as a police force and told to stand down when we think we are close to insurgents, then our hands are tied.
Don't get this confused with if we get attacked. We will and can respond with firepower.
I hope that helps.
2007-02-07 05:41:11 · answer #2 · answered by shovelkicker 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What I have heard from some soldiers that have done a couple of tours is that when they first got there they had a clear cut goal. That was to defeat the Iraqi army. Now they just occupy. Which translates to complete your tour without getting killed.
2007-02-07 05:37:49 · answer #3 · answered by philosofurrier 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What he ment is that he and other soldiers are not being allowed to fight this war the way it should be to win. To much PC that is what is getting our soldiers killed.
2007-02-07 05:37:36 · answer #4 · answered by evildragon1952 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He probably wanted to fight and kick some @ss and get it over with. Not ride around in a Humvee waiting to get blown up.
2007-02-07 05:33:34 · answer #5 · answered by Paul Frehley 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is well known that every war has no go areas where allie assats are [friends]
like with ww2 bombing banks and uinsurance kept bombs out of thier areas and properties
every war has no go zones and insurgents soon realise they wont be bothered if they hide there
thus are your hands tied
2007-02-07 05:40:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
An oil thief is hiding behind the true soldier for protection!!!
2007-02-07 05:58:02 · answer #7 · answered by SESHADRI K 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
As far as I understand, he probably meant he wanted to butcher many Iraqis, but he was ordered not to.
2007-02-07 05:39:45 · answer #8 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
may be his commander had threatened him not to kill any civilians and was later killed bu civils
2007-02-07 05:31:38 · answer #9 · answered by Lancelot 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, they would not let him shoot on anything that moved.
2007-02-08 01:59:32 · answer #10 · answered by thevillageidiotxxxxx 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋