Skip to comments.Rules of Engagement for the 21st Century Battlefield
Posted on 03/01/2016 6:54:49 PM PST by Kaslin
click here to read article
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
Could we have won World War II with the rules of engagement we have nowadays???
We should go back to the ROE used during WWII and things would change quickly, IMHO.
Stay Calm and CALL FOR ARTILLERY.
The enemy is running OUR SIDE of the fight. There is no need to wonder why we lose the war (whilst winning battles).
And he didn’t even mention Obama’s stupid rules about not damaging the “environment”.
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?
I doubt it.
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.
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.”
There should be only one ROE: WIN!
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.
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.
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.
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.