Should the rules of engagement be ignored?

Question

I say fire at free will.

Answer 1

THAT WOULD GET THE JOB DONE. AND THE REST OF THE NUT JOBS WILL THINK LONG BEFORE UNLEASHING THE RAFT OF THE U.S. I SAY TAKE OFF THE KID GLOVES AND LET OUR BOYS WIPE THE FLOOR WITH THESE FOOLS.

Answer 2

And what would it gain you? Apart from the fact that the rest of the world would view the US as the terrorists. I know you don't care about that but it would not only recruit 23 million Iraqis into fighting the US, there would be a few billion other Muslims.

What you are advocating is 2 wrongs make a right. And consider this. In the next conventional war, and there will be one, if the US has ignored the conventions then US military would no longer have protection under those conventions. They could be shot out of hand as the US would have repudiated unilaterally the conventions. I come from a military family for many generations. The idea of a civilized nation repudiating the conventions that were so hard to bring into effect makes my blood run cold. Ignoring those conventions is a war crime.

Answer 3

I'll tell you history and go back to the German invasion of Russia during World War II. Within a few months after the invasion, the Germans had conquered tens of thousands of Russian villages. While the German Army pushed on, SS battalions were sent behind the lines for policing these villages. The SS were intermittently harrased by small bands Russian partisans who sabotaged railway lines, supply depots, telephone lines, etc.. The partisans also killed many SS troops. Many SS generals, who became frustrated with the partisan menace, ordered the slaughter of whole villages, because the partisans freely mingled with the civilian population by day then carry out their clandestine operations by night. One SS general even commanded his SS troops: "Kill them all!. They're all terrorists!" (referring to the villagers). Indeed, the word "terrorist" is not something new. Hence was the wholesale slaughter and razing of whole Russian villages by the SS. These brutal and inhumane actions added to the notoriety that made the SS infamous in history.

Now, fast-forward history to the present Iraq war. You are suggesting that the same actions be done by the American troops. Is this the way to conduct the war?. While most Americans readily condemn past SS actions as criminal, yet the same actions if done by American troops is judged as correct and just. Hypocrisy?.

Answer 4

Thats tough to answer when one side (insurgents for example) ignore those rules. But as usual the US will honor them, and continue to loose personnel at a higher rate than if we were allowed to go "weapons free".

Answer 5

I absolutely agree!

The rules of engagement are tying our boys hands in Iraq! The terrorists aren't going to 'play' by the rules of engagement, so why should we?

We should do WHATEVER it takes to secure Iraq from terrorist elements and radical regimes and bring our men and women home safe and sound.

God bless America!

Answer 6

The rules should immediately be changed to fire-at-will

Answer 7

As long as the laws of war and code of conduct are strictlly followed, if the ROE are too restrictive, there should be a grey area.

Answer 8

That is an easy thing for someone to say who is in no danger of being killed in Iraq.

Slaughtering Iraqis will not slow down the insurgency. It will, in fact, do the exact opposite. Just remember that there 23 million potential insurgents in Iraq.

Answer 9

good point, women, children, infants, livestock and pets could be terrorists. Why stop there? obviously prisoners are terrorists too and once they've been disarmed, bound and blindfolded they're still dangerous so shoot them too. best part is that we'll write the history so none of those atrocities need be documented either.
perhaps someday the tables will be turned and I suspect your attitude will be somewhat different.

Answer 10

no the rules of engagment should'nt be ignored