Soldiers Frustrated At Being "Nice Guy" (MUST READ!!)

Chicago Sun-Times (Daily Telegraph) ^ | March 25, 2003 | Oliver Poole

[CygnusXI]

Ah...

So now we know what Milo faced in Yugoslavia.
This Iraqi regime is arming the civilian population and hiding among them. I'm sorry, but under those conditions you have 2 options.

1. Shoot everyone.
2. Don't shoot everyone.

Only one of those 2 options mean victory.
What's it gonna be? Milo chose #2 and now he is a war criminal...

Look. If you are a civilian in Iraq you had better either get out, or make damn sure you are JUST a civilian.

[Kevin Curry]

Not to be a pedant, but I believe the term is "nattering nabobs of negativity." It was lifted from a Spiro Agnew speech that was written, I believe, by Pat Buchanan. In context, it was a poke in the eye of the media then, and is equally approriate today.

So much for trivia. Back to the war.

[BushCountry]

Thanks! :^)

[Double Tap]

Thanks for the clarification. My rank as an "armchair warrior" is still well below the General rank.

[chuknospam]

The United States suffered 148 killed in action, 458 wounded, 121 killed in nonhostile actions and 11 female combat deaths during our very successful 1991 Gulf war. We are well below that now (15 killed in action) and on the doorstep of Bagdad! Some people just can't take success!!!! Jeez, this is the most successfully executed war in history of mankind as it stands now. Every record is being broken. We are going against a fairly strong army.

That is the very truth! It would be nice to pitch a shut-out but the fact of the matter is, there isn't any way. Even if we never went to Iraq and chose to stay home an lob Minuteman nukes onto Iraq, there would be American civilians, contractors, and other people injured or killed, and in accidents related reloading the missle silos. We have deaths related to training, there was a helo crash in Afganistan but no outcry over the soldiers who died in that accident. Study WW2 just a little, so many men died and so many were overseas fighting that women had to take over stateside doing mens jobs. Yes it is terribly sad and we all morn the loss of any soldier, but remember 3000 died in the WTC attacks, 3000 innocent non-combat men, women and children in one day!!!!!. Don't loose perspective, we rolled onto Bagdhad in less than a week, were kicking butt and doing a good job. Pray!.

[hardhead]

Vietnam - all over again.

[ArGee]

The "rules of engagement" need to be reviewed. As it stands now that set of rules is costing American Soldiers, Marines, and Airmen their lives. America doesn't need to pull it's punches.

War is the execution of diplomacy by other means. I hate to see us lose a single soldier "needlessly" but the definition of needlessly has a lot to do with the political purposes behind the war.

One of our political purposes is to liberate Iraq and create another example of a free Muslim state, this one in the heart of the Middle East. It is up to the President to determine whether that political objective is worth the additional risk to the troops. If so, it is up to the field commander to accomplish that goal while minimizing that additional risk.

Shalom.

[Dubya]

bump

[wku man]

Exactly. Let's explain to the Marines who have just lost their buddies how it will "sow good will after the war" to disarm the enemy and bypass him, so he can re-arm and fight on in our rear areas. Let's explain to an Apache pilot how, by not firing artillery prep in the area where his buddies just got shot down, we're winning the "public relations battle" with the individual Iraqi soldier, who of course "we're not at war with", because "we're at war with his leaders". In both cases, if the Marines/Apache pilot didn't knock our teeth out, they'd sure be tempted to.

Yeah, we're wining this war, and we've taken very light casualties so far. But still, we've taken more casualties than was necessary. If it comes down to a choice between "innocent enemy civilian casualties" and needless allied casualties, it's no question where our default position should be.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[flamefront]

50 percent of the coalition's desired targets are being vetoed by high command for fear of hitting a sensitive "no combat zone."

I wonder what the Iraqi rules of engagement are if civilians are part of their army. There is a soft touch double standard about what to hit here.

And, yes, I am second-guessing the army of one.

[Let's Roll]

"The PC Rules of Engagement are supposed to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people."

When will they understand that muslims view this kind of thing as weakness, not magnanimity? Exhibit A - Saddam's gratitude when Bush 41 spared his life and regime. Does the expression - "might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" mean anything? Muslims and their leftie comrades are going to scream no matter what we do - the American people should insist that it be done quickly and with a minimal loss of our forces.

[honway]

There is a tipping point at which the tiny trickle of internal Iraqi opposition will become a flood. That point will occur when they discern Saddam, his sons, and closest associates are no longer in charge

I am sorry. This is all wishful thinking. For the Muslims in Iraq to embrace the infidel would reqire them to abandon their religion,their history, and their culture.

We need to look to the U.S. experience in Germany and Japan in WWII for the model to follow. That was before PC warfare.

When U.S. Marines raised the American flag on Iwo Jima, nobody radioed their commander to instruct the Marines to remove the U.S. flag.

[Iconoclast2]

This, however, is the first war where we have filled the military with lawyers to second-guess targeting decisions. Check out http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030311/4934032s.htm

[1Old Pro]

PC wars put our troops at risk.

[juzcuz]

I don't understand American Military strategy....
Right now on Fox: An American General advising Iraqi civilians to 'stay at home'... ( I take it he means Basrah)

I think that is so stupid. Why not tell those citizens to evacuate to a refugee camp. That way the Iraqi Militia can't use as many of them as shields and save some of their lives. Militia will probably be camped out in civilian houses and stealing civilian food. The innocents are being caught in the middle. The American strategy is encouraging them to stay there...

[honway]

One of our political purposes is to liberate Iraq and create another example of a free Muslim state

This kind of talk scares the hell out of me. The purpose of war is not to make friends. Their are more effective ways of making friends. The purpose of war is to destroy another nation because if you don't it will destroy you. When we win in Iraq, nobody in the Muslim world will look kindly at the example.

I am still overwhelmed by the love the U.S. receives from the Muslim on the street for our liberation of Kuwait.

[Stavka2]

Combat Zones are where combat happens not where politicians deside they are. This is rediculous. If you're going to start this stupid war, at least fight it right and finish it. War is war, if you can't handle the reality of it or your poll numbers can't handle the reality of it, don't start the damned things....but if you do, you had better have the gonads to do it right.

[jeremiah]

I believe it is nattering nabobs of negativity.

[Stavka2]

Basra was always in Iraqi hands, they were counter attacking to take th airport and suburbs.

[Stavka2]

First, this is stupid, any power being out matched will resort to partisan warfare...even the US if the tables were turned. Now, having said that, plan and execute for that instead of being "surprised" they'd play it that way.