Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rules of Engagement for the 21st Century Battlefield
Townhall.com ^ | March 1, 2016 | Allen West

Posted on 03/01/2016 6:54:49 PM PST by Kaslin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 03/01/2016 6:54:49 PM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

2 posted on 03/01/2016 6:58:59 PM PST by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

the best ‘rule of engagement ‘ that I can think of is : Military - STOP giving your oath of allegiance and service to idiots civilians that are undeserving and unworthy of your sacred oath(s) - Start calling the shots ( literally ) Convene a renewed War Department that handles our military foreign affairs , not subservient to any clueless state department or feckless ‘chief executive ‘

Our enemies need to fear America if they choose to challenge or confront us . They need to feel the steel , not our pussy civ politicians brought to heel


3 posted on 03/01/2016 7:01:36 PM PST by LeoWindhorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Good stuff.


4 posted on 03/01/2016 7:02:39 PM PST by sparklite2 ( "The white man is the Jew of Liberal Fascism." -Jonah Goldberg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Could we have won World War II with the rules of engagement we have nowadays???


5 posted on 03/01/2016 7:03:02 PM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

We should go back to the ROE used during WWII and things would change quickly, IMHO.


6 posted on 03/01/2016 7:05:55 PM PST by doc1019 (Cruz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


7 posted on 03/01/2016 7:09:48 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Facing Trump nomination inevitability, folks are now openly trying to help Hillary destroy him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

Stay Calm and CALL FOR ARTILLERY.


8 posted on 03/01/2016 7:10:03 PM PST by batterycommander (...Change your diaper, diaperhead. It's full of shiite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuah.

The enemy is running OUR SIDE of the fight. There is no need to wonder why we lose the war (whilst winning battles).


9 posted on 03/01/2016 7:15:09 PM PST by Flintlock (-Our ballot box STOLEN, our soap box GONE, we're left with our bullet box, now.---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

And he didn’t even mention Obama’s stupid rules about not damaging the “environment”.


10 posted on 03/01/2016 7:24:00 PM PST by libertylover (The problem with Obama is not that his skin is too black, it's that his ideas are too RED.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

For years I have advocated a very simple solution to the proliferation of stupid ROEs;

If you want to write an ROE you have to serve at least six months operating out of an isolated FOB. No such service not writing.

After all, should our ROEs be based on what is actually happening not what some REMF professor thinks is happening?


11 posted on 03/01/2016 7:26:30 PM PST by Nip (BOHEICA and TANSTAAFL - both seem very appropriate today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LeoWindhorse
The common sense ROE is “KILL'EM, KILL'EM ALL”. That quote brought to you by General Stonewall Jackson
12 posted on 03/01/2016 7:34:26 PM PST by 5th MEB (Progressives in the open; --- FIRE FOR EFFECT!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

I doubt it.


13 posted on 03/01/2016 7:43:53 PM PST by Kaslin (He needed theThe l ignorant to reelect him. He got them and now we have to pay the consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: batterycommander

Remember, Allen was a Field Artillery Battalion Commander, but his battalion was essentially employed as a provisional infantry battalion because his guns were so restricted to be practically useless. One gun per battery was more than sufficient to respond to approved calls for fire.


14 posted on 03/01/2016 7:53:14 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

My father and Uncles who fought in WWII and my brother who fought in Korea all said the same thing. “When the fighting starts there are no rules.”


15 posted on 03/01/2016 7:55:55 PM PST by fella ("As it was before Noah so shall it be again,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

There should be only one ROE: WIN!


16 posted on 03/01/2016 7:58:04 PM PST by spel_grammer_an_punct_polise (Why does every totalitarian, political hack think that he knows how to run my life better than I?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Yes, in modern times artillery (and air strikes)have been severely handcuffed by the diversified, squeamished and transgendered command structure in the boutique brigades developed to fight the fair fight against the mooselimbs. Fort Sill has all but turned into a basic training base.


17 posted on 03/01/2016 8:39:28 PM PST by batterycommander (...Change your diaper, diaperhead. It's full of shiite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The problem is when we try to move beyond killing people and breaking things.

Any competent army kills people and breaks things well.

The best armies in the world have seldom ever been able to do more than that in the best of circumstances; the U.S in Japan and Alexander the Great and a few other times come to mind, but not many. IF you aren’t willing to kill everyone and break everything don’t try to conquer or neutralize territory.


18 posted on 03/01/2016 8:47:01 PM PST by RedStateRocker (Better questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
Could we have won World War II with the rules of engagement we have nowadays???

NO.

19 posted on 03/01/2016 10:18:02 PM PST by publius911 (IMPEACH HIM NOW evil, stupid, insane ignorant or just clueless, doesn't matter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LeoWindhorse
Convene a renewed War Department that handles our military foreign affairs , not subservient to any clueless state department or feckless ‘chief executive ‘ Our enemies need to fear America if they choose to challenge or confront us . They need to feel the steel , not our pussy civ politicians brought to heel

Wrong and bad. The military must remain subordinate to the civilian Chief Executive and his civilian reports, under our Constitution. It's the only way to avoid the curse of Latin American juntaism and army meddling in politics as "guarantors of the constitution", which is common in Central and South America.

Don't do it. Bad idea, with 250 years of South American history to back up that assertion.

20 posted on 03/02/2016 1:21:26 AM PST by lentulusgracchus ("If America was a house , the Left would root for the termites." - Greg Gutierrez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson