SFC Taylor, the Fog of War and Army duplicity

[Polarbear1605]

Does it need to?

Yes! and both tactically and strategically ... Viet Nam was a war the US won tactcally but lost strategically...history, I think, is mostly likely to say the same thing about Iraq and Afghanistan.

Isn't it a display of civilisation and rule of law AT HOME to prosecute one's own criminals?

Absolutely, but this is war and it is insurgency war, and the rule of law does not exist on the battle field. In fact, the purpose of the bad guys being there is to demonistrate that the rule of law does not exist. My opinion is that, in general, the laws of war is the only law that exists on the battlefield and any attempt to mix them is a failure to properly set the strategic tapistry for success of the war.

[socal1200r]

Again, woulda, coulda, shoulda...did he, or did he not, violate the ROE's that were in effect at the time, yes or no? Can't make it any more black and white than that...I say "yes", others say "no", so it'll be up to which side has the better lawyers in the end...

[slapout9]

this is what Boyd meant about the Moral level of Warfare.


Listen to a former KGB propaganda and subversion expert explain what the enemy is doing to us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMWVU...eature=related

[Ken White]

Nor do I believe anyone else who was not can make that determination -- and that includes the members of the Court...

Again, woulda, coulda, shoulda...did he, or did he not, violate the ROE's that were in effect at the time, yes or no? Can't make it any more black and white than that...I say "yes", others say "no", so it'll be up to which side has the better lawyers in the end...

You may be correct in your final assessment, however, the real question is; Should it come to that point?

ROE are necessary but like all rules and regulations they are merely a guide. Human judgment has to be applied and sometimes those rules must -- I use that word advisedly -- be transgressed. Slavish adherence to rules is, simply, stupid because no rules can account for every situation. In war or combat, such adherence is not only potentially stupid, it is literally a killer (not least because it sets up mind numbing predictability, a tactical no-no for thousands of years...).

War requires a lot of judgement calls and entails taking risks -- anyone not willing to acknowledge and live with that ought to find another line of work. The 'safety' of adherence to rules is remarkably inimical to combat survival but it's great for job security in an Army at peace -- and make no mistake, the US Army as an institution is at peace and has been since 1945.

Slapout is right, we're being played for yo-yos. Our fetish for 'rules' and the 'better lawyer' syndrome are not helping.

[Fuchs]

Absolutely, but this is war and it is insurgency war, and the rule of law does not exist on the battle field. In fact, the purpose of the bad guys being there is to demonistrate that the rule of law does not exist. My opinion is that, in general, the laws of war is the only law that exists on the battlefield and any attempt to mix them is a failure to properly set the strategic tapistry for success of the war

So you want to defeat the insurgents by proving they're right and not follow the law?

Besides, war ends sometime, criminals are leftovers. A civilised country with a rule of law at home treats them like criminals.

[Polarbear1605]

So you want to defeat the insurgents by proving they're right and not follow the law?

Besides, war ends sometime, criminals are leftovers. A civilised country with a rule of law at home treats them like criminals.

No...I want to prove the insurgents are wrong to use civilians as shields by following the laws of war and refuse the cover of the rule of law to the bad guys.