[Attempting to give a "second chance" to what's, IMHO, a great topic of conversation that's quite interesting. Would just wish people can keep things civil and make good, valid points. Mods, if you don't like this, that's cool, but I ask that it be given another chance to work; and if it doesn't, then oh well....we ruined it ourselves]
I'd like to address the issue of how we're prosecuting our current war from two personal viewpoints: 1. As a member of the US military, and 2. As a US taxpayer; since reading the last closed thread, IMO, some people were getting this distinction blurred.
As a member of the military, there may be ROE I don't personally agree with, or that I think might be a hinderance, etc. But as that professional who's doing the job I was hired and trained to do, I have a responsibility to do the mission and exercise any personal initiative to the extent the ROE allows. It's not my call to make my own rules up as I see fit; regardless of how I feel about them. If I wish to do that, I shouldn't be in the job I'm in. The ROE is published, and I may personally agree or disagree with it, but I follow it to the max extent possible, deviating (I would think) in an emergency situation if need be. But that would be an unusual situation and definitely not the norm. Whether other people like snake eaters or the like have different or even no ROE isn't any of my concern. I work with what I'm given the best I can. That's how it works.
As a US taxpayer, however, my beef concerning ROE has nothing to directly do with the military at all, only indirectly. Everything I feel about how the military relates to ROE is covered in the paragraph above. Any beef I have with my perceived overly-restrictive or one-hand-behind-back ROE rests solely with our elected civilian leadership. IMHO, if our leadership focuses too much on PC or worldwide appeasement, our ability to make progress in the GWOT is going to be severely curtailed. We're never going to win the hearts and minds of the islamofacists; just as we're never going to appease everyone in the world as to our foreign policy. Does this mean our government should just tell the world to piss off, and we go our own way? Of course not. But we can't roll over to the world whim of appeasment either. If we do, and I sense we might be seeing this now, all that's going to happen is that the war is going to drag on. This will serve to do no more than get more of our guys killed, and both these elements will combine to erode public opinion and support for GWOT foreign policy. Once that happens, we can say hello to the spectre of Vietnam all over again. Am I saying the GWOT should be able to be accomplished in a day? Of course not. But it too needs to be balanced against being dragged on. We need to have the will to do what's necessary to achieve our political goals, without needlessly expending American lives. Sure, death is to be expected and often can't be avoided in the military line of work....military members signed on the dotted line and know full well the risk factor; but I would wish for the elected leadership to take all resonable steps to not hinder our troops' ability to accomplish the mission they assigned to them. Nor would I want our troops to be in harms way any longer than they need to be. Just because the troops signed the dotted line, doesn't make them cannon fodder, regardless of the instruments of policy they may happen to be. If our elected leadership gives the troops a mission, the elected leadership better have the will to win. If they've lost said will, or never really had it; then the GWOT will never achieve it's stated goals; and all that will come out of it is more bodybags filled, from all sides. How then the leadership will justify the US lives lost to the American public, will be interesting to see.
Just one man's 2 cents on the matter. Have BTDT, multiple times, both OEF and OIF, if that means anything.
Would like to close with this interesting letter regarding one man's perception of the people we're fighting, sent to me by a friend:
[ 26. September 2006, 20:40: Message edited by: MD ]
