Rules of engagement

[ironglow]

   If you fellows recall it was nearly 2 years ago, after having conversed with friends who are special ops and combat line troops, I made a prediction .
  I predicted right here, that due to the new "rules of engagement"casualties would rise precipitously. Now in the last 1.5 years, the casualty figures have risen just as I predicted...precipitously...   Do I have a better tactical sense that the Washington bigwigs, or do they just not care how many of our combat troops get killed and wounded ?        http://www.icasualties.org/oef/
 
   The new rules of engagement are causing many of the best NCOs (the true heart of any fighting force), to leave the military. They tell me they don't really mind the combat in defense of our country...  They just don't care to go into combat with their hands tied !
  
        This, along with such crackpot ideas as repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" rule is causing the exodus of some of the military's best.

[ironglow]

  Note; there are almost as many war casualties in the last 1.5 years as were inflicted during the entire  7.5 years the Bush admin ran the war.
     For some reason the link didn't register above .. here it is..

   http://www.icasualties.org/oef/

[powderman]

I personally know of soldiers who will get out the sooner the better. They don't want anything to do with welcoming the deviates and being handicapped with bos new rules. He  reminds  me of the big bad wolf, ALL THE BETTER TO WEAKEN US my dear.  POWDERMAN. 

[Pat/Rick]

If the reason is so severe that combat troops need deployed, then fight as wars are meant to be fought. No quarter. To the victor belongs the spoils. Load 'em up and bring them home.To remain someplace and try to change a government or police its people afterwards just doesn't pan out.

[ironglow]

Pat/Rick
  I agree, if troops are to be deployed..let them fight for all their worth, with all the skills they have learned. If the politicians want to severely limit their options...must be they didn't really want combat troops in the first place..

[elhoward622]

It is the problem with Urban/house to house combat.  With new rules you have to send troops walking into an ambush to clear out a suspected building instead of leveling it!  I don't disagree with the rules however.  This is why: the more civilians we kill unintentionally, they more new soldiers we send to the enemy.  Killing civilians turns the population against us and hurts the overall effort.  If your family gets killed by an incidental tank blast then you are going to want revenge and hate Americans.  It plays into the terrorists hands.  This is just not the type of battle that a land army is built to win.  Besides guys, that is what separates "US" from "THEM."  They have no remorse for killing innocents.

[jimster]

It is the problem with Urban/house to house combat.  With new rules you have to send troops walking into an ambush to clear out a suspected building instead of leveling it!  I don't disagree with the rules however.  This is why: the more civilians we kill unintentionally, they more new soldiers we send to the enemy.  Killing civilians turns the population against us and hurts the overall effort.  If your family gets killed by an incidental tank blast then you are going to want revenge and hate Americans.  It plays into the terrorists hands.  This is just not the type of battle that a land army is built to win.  Besides guys, that is what separates "US" from "THEM."  They have no remorse for killing innocents.

I do disagree with the rules, and I also disagree with clearing houses, I also think we should not invade another country and call it war unless you fight it like a war.

Not one American soldiers life is worth being careful for the sake of being politically correct or looking good to someone else.  You don't send soldiers to a foreign land and make him vunerable, they were not trained to be vunerable.

Pull them all out now, or devistate the entire land and win now...if there are people in charge that can't make that call they should not be in charge and are not strong enough to win any war.  Which should be obvious by now.

It plays into the terrorists hands.

What plays into their hands is not having the intesitinal fortitude due to politics to win a war by total devistation. There are no innocents in war...never have been in any war that was won.  Won't be any innocents around here either, works both ways.  Someone needs to get a handle on this, we have soldiers dying for politics. They now have to protect themselves from us as well as the enemy.  Helliva spot to put a soldier in.

[Pat/Rick]

Its our "surgical" door kicking in that has karzai threatening to join the taliban himself. Unlimited, no quarter warfare eliminates those who would be future enemies, and the survivors to question the merit of becoming an enemy. No. Time to come home. There is absolutely nothing over there worth American blood. What, poppy fields? Goats? Bakeries? Withdraw and sever ALL ties with them, repatriate their people living here. The USA does not need anything they have.

[jimster]

Time to come home.

+1

[Empty Quiver]

I think General Sherman might disagree with your ideas on limited engagements Elhoward.

 You cannot worry about offending people during a war. If every able bodied potential combatant is dead or dying the fighting will end. You cannot use the military to send strongly worded messages. Afgani's are fightin' SOB's since forever. You aren't going to buy them out of this, you aren't going to scare them out of a fight. You sure as hell can't make them much more "uncomfortable"  in their daily lives, they won't notice if you cut off the cable TV, or blow up the local Starbucks.

We don't have the stomach for this.

[ironglow]

It is the problem with Urban/house to house combat.  With new rules you have to send troops walking into an ambush to clear out a suspected building instead of leveling it!  I don't disagree with the rules however.  This is why: the more civilians we kill unintentionally, they more new soldiers we send to the enemy.  Killing civilians turns the population against us and hurts the overall effort.  If your family gets killed by an incidental tank blast then you are going to want revenge and hate Americans.  It plays into the terrorists hands.  This is just not the type of battle that a land army is built to win.  Besides guys, that is what separates "US" from "THEM."  They have no remorse for killing innocents.

 Not quite accurate elhoward, my grandson as a Marine Special ops, did plenty of house clearings in Iraq during two deployments. They even had special shotgun slugs designed to break through locked doors and fireman type axes for the same purpose. Mossberg 500s, along with M4 (full auto) the often preferred weapons for the job.
   No, this is a case of giving the enemy the "first shot" and sometimes, the second and third shot. Combat troops of the Army & Marines (yes, Navy & AF too) are trained to "kill people and break things" ..if the politicians don't want that done, don't send the combat troops in.
    Perhaps the politicians should do the job themselves..

[FourBee]

 ' Rules of Engagement '
Political involvement ties the hands of the warriors.  They can't win a battle, they can't even win a war.  I saw battle plans drawn out on the tables in Vietnam.   I heard the arguments between the Marines, Army, and USAF.  The high command had to bend by the politicians rules time and again.  Our troops fought valiantly, but what good does it when they're not allowed to complete their mission ?
 

[Spirithawk]

Rules of engagement? Hmmmm, now where have I heard that before? 

Disabled Vietnam Vet

As rediculous now as then! Nough said!

[elhoward622]

I am NOT mistaken ironglow.  I personally don't think your grandson should shoot a special slug into a doorlock and bust into a house for one guy with a hand grenade.  His life is not worth it.  House to house "surgical" operations gets lots of good soldiers killed.  I agree with you Vietnam vets.  Our soldiers can't win this war fighting like this.  We lost the war when we let Osama go and invaded Iraq.  We missed the window and now the politicians have to figure out how to get out without looking bad.  It is no longer worth losing our soldiers and it is not worth the cost to "blow up" the country.  That is also absolutely ridiculous.

[jimster]

We lost the war when we let Osama go and invaded Iraq.

Catching Osama back then, or now...would not stopped the war on us by radical Islam then, or now.
If Osama were caught yesterday, you would still be in the Middle east tomorrow and who knows for how long, nothing would change at all.  Example...Saddam was hung by the neck until dead, we are still in Iraq, a whole bunch of bombs just went off in Bagdad, and will continue to go off regardless if we are there, or gone. You could even talk the uneducated masses into thinking we are not in Iraq anymore by throwing a number out there...say 50,000 troops...
people now are walking around thinking the soldiers came home because of what was reported, and how.

I do not think it is war to put a bounty on one persons head (Osama) either.
War is the complete devistation of the country you are invading, done quicky by air, and then secured by troops after there is just burnt rubble left. We then take whatever we want, that's called the spoils of war. Rebuild it? What for? It was war, not a way to transfer tax money and more corruption.

We are not at war...never have been.  The people we have had in charge over the years do not have the stomach for war....somehow they have decided without much thought, that soldiers dying a few at a time is somehow worth their politics, they count on the masses of uneducated people to not think about soldiers dying a few at a time every day.
They are correct in counting on this...the masses are ignorant and uneducated. The people in charge of our country are weak and inexperienced, because the masses who are ignorant, voted for people LIKE THEMSELVES. 

Elections have consequences, and after a few decades, the consequences get real serious.

War is just a word to the masses...they think we are at war now somewhere, but we are not at war. We are simply killing soldiers a few at a time to satisfy politicians and the masses who elect them. Everything we are doing is based on politics and ignorance and it's cost many families way too much already with no way to get back their loved ones.
 

[elhoward622]

There's alot of truth in that now

[powderman]

The muslims intentionally put civilians in harms way HOPING they will be killed. When that happens the dems, muzzie appeasers, and other pantywetters cry FOUL. The godless ones kill more of their own than we ever have. POWDERMAN. 

[elhoward622]

Thats why its called terrorism p-man.  It just plain works.

[elhoward622]

This is not the work for a ground army.  The CIA and spec. forces are the really only effective devices against terrorism.

[rdmallory]

This is not the work for a ground army.  The CIA and spec. forces are the really only effective devices against terrorism.

And a few MOABs from 10,000 feet.


Doug

[wreckhog]

Viet Nam was bombed until it looked like a moonscape. Charlie dug tunnels.

[FourBee]

Viet Nam was bombed until it looked like a moonscape. Charlie dug tunnels.

Yep; that's cause we couldn't hit the roads, especially on those steep mountain banks.  What we called 'Road Cuts' along the Ho Che Mehn Trail.  The roads we did hit ~ RECON photo's showed them patched over in 24 hrs.   Thanks to the Monsoon rains, one mountain side washed away uncovering several bulldozers once hidden in caves.   We tried a type of GAS Bomb that released a volital gas before a detonator went off.  Sorta works like a small atom bomb.  But the triple foliage prevented the gasses from spreading fast enough and all we got was a poop.....


p.s.  We did run a series of B-52 raids for awhile, I almost forgot about that.  You know people in villages (gone) actually lived thru it.

[Cabin4]

Rules of engagement? Hmmmm, now where have I heard that before? 

Ruby Ridge.

[elhoward622]

to me it is a moot point. we need our boys home. so what if we bomb the place to nothing? what are we going to do guard the hole from al queda?? i have a feeling that we will soon feel terror stemming from many other countries.

[ironglow]

I am NOT mistaken ironglow.  I personally don't think your grandson should shoot a special slug into a doorlock and bust into a house for one guy with a hand grenade.  His life is not worth it.  House to house "surgical" operations gets lots of good soldiers killed.  I agree with you Vietnam vets.  Our soldiers can't win this war fighting like this.  We lost the war when we let Osama go and invaded Iraq.  We missed the window and now the politicians have to figure out how to get out without looking bad.  It is no longer worth losing our soldiers and it is not worth the cost to "blow up" the country.  That is also absolutely ridiculous.

    Apparently I misunderstood your post..but there are still a few things that need clarification. When he and his squad broke into a "safe" house, it was almost never for "one guy with a hand grenade". More often, it was 15-20 guys, all with weapons. Here is a video of other Marines operating in the same area, doing the same thing. This video features Capt Brian Chontosh (@ about the 4 min mark). In this video he faces the same situation my grandson often faced..fanatics who refuse to surrender. Chontosh in this case handles it the best way, because that is his choice.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggWs_9Y7QcA
  When visiting  Special Operations Marines, they say that normally, they were looking toward capture so the prisoner could be interrogated. Unfortunately, these fanatics usually refuse to surrender.  Sometimes intel gained from one captive can save many lives. There were times when the  Marines would fight into a house..and be lucky to get one out as a captive....but one can often provide much needed intel for G2.

   Later added note;
       I know several combat troops personally, including a Marine who is with the bomb detection dogs and an Army Ranger who has several deployments (Iraq & Afghan) to his credit. They all agree that in every case, they really didn't want  to see the enemy die..they would have much rather seen them surrender. This however, is a case of the "immovable object" coming in contact with the "irresistable force".

[elhoward622]

I understand what you are saying but I'm talking about getting soldiers killed.  Door busting means someone is getting killed.  If guys dont surrender then they can hit the building with and RPG or tank and destroy that.  The "heavy" options are now off the table.  In urban combat that means more dead soldiers.

[teamnelson]

The present ROE was written in concert with the new COIN doctrine. You cannot make sense out of the ROE if you're trying to make it work in traditional warfare, or even assymetrical or maneuver warfare; it is COIN specific. COIN is focused on the detention or deterrence of individuals; not the neutralization of an organized unit. So to really get at the weaknesses of the current ROE, you cannot evaluate it against prior thinking - its an apples to oranges comparison. Its a law enforcement model, not a combat model. That's the issue; we have combat troops with a law enforcement mission. My embedded LEO advisors have all been disgusted at the mixing of missions.

That said, I've served under soon to be 4 decades of evolving ROE alongside their requisite warfighting doctrines, and I've experienced firsthand KIA and WIA friends and brothers in arms as a direct result of observing the ROE and its accompanying guidance. Pay attention to that last phrase "accompanying guidance." "Commanders and their staff" are encouraged to remove their PPE while under host protection as a sign to support the (politically motivated) acceleration of the turnover timeline; the illogic is if we make ourselves vulnerable while under their protection they will see that as an acknolwedgement of their ability to take over their own security. My SgtMaj has his life, but not his legs, because he did not remove his PPE per the "guidance" while our CO was killed, along with a brother mustang ... both killed BECAUSE they removed their PPE as per the guidance. And were it not for a need for command presence in two places at once, I would've been right there with them.

On the other hand, my upgunner had to shoot a nervous teenager driving his aunt and uncle to a wedding ... 2 .50 cal rounds inside 100m ... per the ROE. So lives are being lost needlessly on both sides because of this foolishness.

Accompanying guidance with the ROE also suggested that female troops were needed out  in the kinetic areas to patdown local females. Dumb, dumb, dumb idea, but politically motivated. So a young lady was killed by a male suicide vest wearer at a checkpoint; she was in place of a trained male security troop; she was a supply clerk sped through a class on customs and courtesies and sent out to man a checkpoint on the edge of secure space.

Pull out yes, but as fast as you possibly can with no transition plan. Its the ambiguity in the transition plan, coupled with the COIN, ROE accompanying guidance that is getting people killed needlessly. We should leave so fast we break the sound barrier with the remaining vacum.

[elhoward622]

Wow, great perspective.  Yeah, right on, we need to leave fast.

[billy_56081]

The rules of engagement need to be take the objective by all means necessary. Do not risk American personel needlessly. No quarter for the enemy or its supporters.Ghengis Kahn knew how to handle the enemy and uprisings. When at war be at total war.

[Pat/Rick]

Team Nelson, thanks for your first hand insight. Welcome home!! I do agree, we should come home.