is the point of having them fight a war they can never win because of the Pentagon's "rules of engagement"? Do the terrorists in Iraq have "rules of engagement"?
2007-02-20 12:31:21 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I don't think the terrorists have any rules of engagement. The idea is that we're supposed to be "bigger" than them... which is where we need to train a *lot* more intelligence officers, who are allowed to fight more dirty.
2007-02-20 12:34:28 · answer #1 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The "war" was over a while ago. It's an occupation -- with the aleged goal of staying there until the Iraqis can "defend themselves" and become a "stable pro US democracy" The problem are we are seen as a occupying army, in the aftermath of the war we didn't provide security, didn't rebuild, tortured and imprisoned people indiscriminently, had corrupt and incompetent people runing the Iraq provisional authority which all turned the Iraqi people against us. The government that's in place is corrupt. Over 60% of the people want us out of the country.
Do you think looosening the rules of engagement is going to change any of that? All that means is more US Service people and Iraqis will be killed.
The solution now isn't military, it's political and it's the Iraqis who are the ones ho have to figure out how to stabilize the country and stop killing each over. The US has to get out of the way as we have lost all credibility with the people and a government seen as being propped up by US will always be suspect. Too bad due to our screwing up the aftermath our "victory" most of the secular middle class has left the country or been killed by the religious factions. Bush's refusal to heed advice to get other countries in the region involved dimplomatically isn't helping the situation. Also, you over simplify by labeling all the fighters as "terrorists" -- if all the foreign terrorist surrendered you would still be left with SHi'ia vs. Sunni, a corrupt government and most of the people wanting us out.
The overall problem with your arguement is that you think we can "win" militarily at this point -- it's beyond that now. As Colin Powell said "You break it, you own it" and man did we break it.
2007-02-20 13:13:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Considering Saddam could not control the borders of Iraq with a million soldiers how could the Americans with half that amount. Same bunch were sneaking weapons across then as now, only difference we hear of their attacks now. OK some of the weapons were been brought in by the CIA and Mossad to be used on the Iraqi people. I do recall a few explosions mentioned in Baghdad before the War targeted at civilians just were not on Fox news are any news agency really. Who cared at all that some Sunni's were been killed until some Americans were on the ground caught up in the mess.
2016-05-24 00:18:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problems are not with limitations of rules of engagement -- the troops can do whatever is necessary and appropriate. The problems are that finding the bad guys hiding in the middle of a sea of good guys is very difficult to do. Having more people scattered among the communities could well help.
2007-02-20 12:39:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The "Rules of Engagement" make a war last a lot longer allowing military supply merchants to make a lot more money. Like you say, they don't win wars.
2007-02-20 12:36:43 · answer #5 · answered by Wrath Warbone 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The "rules of engagement" are the ones made up to appease the LIBBI ES. The terrorists fight by no rules and no code of morals. They will TARGET women and children AS A NORM...not as collateral damage..they also use them as shields...These actions are APPLAUDED by the lib left. To Truly win this war we need to take the handcuffs off the soldiers....the country would be in line VERY FAST...the reason we get no cooperation from the civilians is their fear of the terrorists...we need them to fear us MORE...but that isn't PC and if we did that the libs would have to stop whining that we are "losing" the war....
2007-02-20 12:43:58 · answer #6 · answered by Real Estate Para Legal 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Police in America have fewer rules than soldiers in Iraq. Soldiers in Iraq are forbidden from shooting at a criminal running away from a crime.
2007-02-20 12:46:46 · answer #7 · answered by a bush family member 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not about rules of engagement.
It's about fighting a war of occupation in an environment of urban guerilla warfare where we're vastly outnumbered - and uniformly seen by locals as in the wrong. In this war of attrition, the locals will certainly outlast us in determination.
It's also about us refusing to deal with the pipeline of funds and arms from Saudi Arabia. Most U.S. casualties are in Sunni provinces. And Saudi Arabia is the main supporter of Sunni insurgents (Iran is Shiite, and they exclusively support Shiite militia, who are mostly fighting on the same side as the U.S.-backed Shiite leadership - mind you in an unofficial capacity). There's an uncanny parallel to Vietnam, where we were unwilling to cut off supply routes from China for fear of escalating the war - instead, simply sending thousands more Americans to their deaths.
2007-02-20 12:39:11 · answer #8 · answered by Mark P 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
You are 100% correct. Nothing pisses off the soldier more than having to hold back....especially when they've lost several buddies. You can not win a "politically correct" war.....Viet Nam has already showed us that. What really gets me is the media. They have the gall to interview the terrrorists, know exactly where they're at, and I bet they even know they're plans.....but they're protected by Freedom of Speech......then they have the nerve to embed themselves with the military. To me, that's treason.
2007-02-20 12:40:17 · answer #9 · answered by cajunrescuemedic 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The terrorists in Iraq are the Americans.
2007-02-20 12:34:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋