long time ago? And who determines what the US military rules of engagement are in Iraq? Bush, Congress, Republicans, Democrats, the Pentagon?
2007-02-07 14:22:08 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I believe all of the above have a say, but Bush is the Commander in Chief. But yes, I think if we meet the fanatics on THEIR terms, instead of trying to be polite, we'd would have finished it by now.
2007-02-07 14:25:54 · answer #1 · answered by Lola 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't know what the rules of engagement were in the first place so I can't say. Rules of engagement are determined by all of the above and also by the CO on the ground. The UCMJ, The Constitution and international law all come into play when determining what the rules of engagement will be.
No I don't believe that rules of engagement were the problem. I believe that policy was the problem. Allowing the Iraqi military to dissolve, and take their weapons home was a biggy. The biggest was going to Iraq in the first place.
2007-02-07 14:30:41 · answer #2 · answered by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That is what I have always believed.When Bush first said he was going to go to war I thought he was going to do like desert storm and have it over within a few months but it looks like it is going to be dragged out indefinitely and probably get way worse before it gets better. The rules of engagement are really a sick joke.
I think the liberals pulled the rules of engagement the same way they complained about the treatment of prisoners at Abu Grabe.
They have been tying Bush's hands to make him look bad. If he HAD done like desert storm we wouldn't be in this mess.
And the liberals saying they want to talk with them seems so unrealistic.
If a Democrat gets to be President next I do not think they will solve the problem like they talk either.
2007-02-07 14:38:11 · answer #3 · answered by sapphire_630 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If they had more freedom with the rules of engagement, they'd piss off even more Iraqis (and all Muslims) and we'd be worse off than we are now. Fanatics don't shoot from mosques so that we won't shoot back; they do it so that we WILL shoot back. How do you think the general population would feel about us if day after day they heard reports that Americans leveled another Mosque? We have to be smarter than the enemy, not fall into his traps.
There is none so blind as him who will not see.
2007-02-07 14:32:09 · answer #4 · answered by normobrian 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so. Fighting guerrillas (and that is what the insurgents are in actuality) is a dirty messy business and using conventional warfare tactics against them simply doesn't work. Historically the only way to beat them is through subterfuge and spying to expose some basic weakness.
2007-02-07 14:29:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you think President. Truman was a murder, he killed almost 200,000
The answer is no, he prevented a few mi lion people of being killed
the same would be in iraq .if our army could use not olny M16
maby 500 american and 6,000 killed iraqi insted you have almost 4.000 american and 200.000 iraqi
and we are far from done
2007-02-07 14:41:02 · answer #6 · answered by bestjcook 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The law.
every private has a "conduct" book that says what a soldier can + cannot do during wartime.
ie, torture should never be applied to any opposing soldier during wartime. Also, if you witness unlawful torture being committed, you must properly make steps to bring justice to the torturer...
stuff like that.
also stuff about when you should shoot, to prevent friendly fire...
2007-02-07 14:32:04 · answer #7 · answered by Corey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if we would give an "unlimited terms of engagement " order to our troops, we would have a better chance of securing military objectives, but the act of simply securing military objectives is not enough, we need to understand the foreign/local political needs of Iraq to win the eventual prize of world opinion and national defense...no one said it would be easy, we need to expect our politicians to go the extra mile,,,if our politicians want historical recognition or even acceptance, they need to understand that they need to exert a more than adequate effort in securing this ideal...that is why i do not support Bush, he seems to accept the minimum and send his secretaries to defend the inadequacies of the Administration's decisions...expect more from our leaders or kick them out!
2007-02-07 14:31:04 · answer #8 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
bush abided by geneva conventions
war would have been over in june 2003
2007-02-07 14:33:14 · answer #9 · answered by Captain Planet 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The UN DUM DUM! It's called the GENEVA CONVENTION! and its the Law OF Armed Conflict! Not rules of engagement. You watch too many dang movies.
2007-02-07 14:28:20 · answer #10 · answered by Josh F 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋