Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
To the extent that this work of art purports to be either a piece of legal scholarship - or a legal brief - in regard to the Rhodesian "rules of engagement", it flunks. I am no more enlightened after reading it, than I was before reading it.
Thank you for your comments Mike.

I would be interested on hearing further comment relating to the construction of this 'thesis' from an academic point of view.

I was in two minds whether to quote his first paragraph or his final sentence (and decided on the latter). I note you zeroed right in on the 'problem in the first paragraph. Let's look at that then:

In the 1970s, a bloody insurgency took place in Rhodesia, now present-day Zimbabwe. African insurgents faced a settler-state determined to keep power in white hands. the government adopted a punitive and enemy-centric counterinsurgency strategy. Many Rhodesian soldiers embraced the punitive approach to such an extent that they overextended the rules of engagement. Although the Rhodesian Bush War took place in its unique historical context, it should also serve as a warning for commanders of troops currently engaged in enemy-centric “anti-terrorism” operations.
Rules of engagement?

I never heard the term until I saw the movie of that name 20 years after the end of the Rhodesian war.

It should be obvious that you can't over extend what you don't have.

I suggest the problem these youngsters (20 something) have when looking back at a war which happened 30 years plus a go is that they judge actions against current norms. Quite clearly de Boer is not (or rather was not at the time he wrote this) mature enough to address this issue. Surely the arrogance of youth should be tempered by the guidance of his thesis Supervisor?

Then ... damn it ... the Military Review goes and puts his name up in lights.

...then perhaps the other hackneyed cliche of the period is the continued regurgitation of the left-wing liberal line so loved by the 'progressive' university types of the 70's (some around here I seem to recall) that:

African insurgents faced a settler-state determined to keep power in white hands.
Again I suggest a quick read of JRT Wood's - Countering the Chimurenga - from the book Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare will help these poor misguided souls understand the political dynamics of that time.

...but then again if all whites in Rhodesia were not rabid diehard racists (who were not clinging to power but attempting to ensure a controlled transition to majority rule) then how would these same left-wing academics be able to continue to accept that every white down to infants were legitimate targets for rape and murder by the 'glorious' forces of liberation?