Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 73,286
The entire issue is tangled up in a political/legal/reasonable morass. The entire UCMJ re. warfighting needs a reevaluation.
I was reading an article on the this subject and came across the below quote;
AP article
So what is the purpose of the military? To be a leader in lawful and ethical battlefield behavior or to kill people and break things until the enemy has neither the will or the means to resist? Which of those missions are we to emphasize because you just can't have both. This is a discussion that has to take place.
Of course there has to thresholds of acceptable behavior while at the same time we can't hamstring the war fighter by having every single action subject to review by a group of attorneys, especially when the war fighter is in close contact with the enemy and most particularly when engaged in asymmetrical warfare.
It was clear that during the Obama administration the emphasis was on "ethical and lawful behavior on the battlefield." And that emphasis was also reflected in the ROE's, ROE's that managed to get a lot of soldiers killed or maimed. ROE's that actually gave the enemy the advantage. The ROE's were easy to roll back, the courtroom barrister attitude towards warfare not so much.
At the same time we can't allow a "kill them all let God sort them out" attitude to prevail on the battlefield either. And most particularly in asymmetric warfare scenario's. And that's why a reevaluation needs to take place.
FDR and every American field commander in WWII and since would be tried for war crimes under Barack Obama's asinine ROE's
