Tensions have been escalating with Russia since 2013. Iranian tensions bounce around but they still loom. I guess we can throw North Korea on the list but I'm not too concerned about them. China? I'll save them for another thread about Cyber warfare. If the United States gets involved in a war with another nation, do you believe they (whoever they are) will respect the NATO rules of engagement? If they are not a member, do you believe they will have any respect for our internal rules of engagement? I personally believe many nations such as China and Russia know how we are becoming weak as a public in the US and that our military is always criticized by our own people. Lawyers have more pull in the military than generals (you'll get that if you're in right now). Our enemies know that we can't fight the way we used to fight. With our media, the constant outrage...our enemies WILL take advantage of that. They don't care about public image like we do here. If you don't understand war or military theater, understand that our enemies' do. They understand that we have a process to follow. For instance, the taliban obviously doesn't obey the ROE, but we still do. Hell, we have to WAIT TO GET SHOT AT before engaging! How do you think a major nation will handle that weakness our nation has developed as a whole?
Many act as if we will never be involved in a major campaign again...We will. And when that happens, we'll have the chains on while our enemy will take advantage of that. Do you think our enemy is going to care what we think if they torture our captured soldiers? If they execute our captured prisoners? They'll laugh knowing that all we can do is lightly interrogate their prisoners with lawyers breathing down our backs. I was just listening to a retired General speak on a military podcast. He said the same thing- "We don't even want to think about a next major war because the public outcry and the media will lose it for us".
I usually assume that anyone who expects that war should be a sanitary exercise have never seen or been in the fire before. I suspect that the reason we give these folks purchase today is simply because we have the luxury to do so.
With our current rules of engagement- going up against an actual military the "be killed" will be high because we cannot fire unless being fired upon. It's not so bad fighting the taliban because they hide 300 meters away and just take "pop shots" because they don't have the power to fight head on like a normal nation. If we get into a major conflict, it's going to be catastrophic.
Our ROE have much changed over 75 years. Since 2011 actually. Also, our last major campaign was Vietnam. We haven't gone toe to toe with a major military force like Russia, China, or Iran. Iraq was a major campaign but their military was already crippled plus their leader went into hiding which caused MASS confusion for them. If you entered this thread to derail, I'll note the trolling. I'm speaking of a war with a major nation/military force.
I don't think other nations will wantonly commit war crimes, and I think that's basically all the ROE say. So I think most nations will, particularly those that are signatory to major treaties. Terrorist groups, like the Taliban and ISIS, generally don't, but that's on them. What are you getting at? Do you think we should torture? Should we shoot prisoners, go after combatant's families, round up and kill civilians in reprisal, what? My poor research skills are not up to the challenge of finding a copy of the ROE our soldiers are expected to use that can be readily posted. Wiki has a copy of the ROE card used in Somalia and I am using that for purposes of this discussion. Anyone doing better will be much appreciated.
No, I don't understand why you think we should torture or shoot prisoners. I was speaking of what our enemy would possibly be doing- as I clearly stated. Feel free to quote me. Do you believe Russia, China, or Iran would adhere to the NATO ROE or do you believe they would use that to their advantage to strike fear? Remember, war is war- it's not "super fun time". War is about killing, getting information, and destroying your enemy nation or fighting force. It's not a video game.
Considering you have no examples of Roe and how it has changed most if not everyone not associated with the military know what in the hell you are speaking of. As far as our military it has never been perfect and never will be. We have been on a war footing since WWII and did not do like we have before WWII where we dismantled the majority of our military due to no foreseen dangers of invasion. We invaded Kuwait in 1990 to take it back from Iraq and did just fine and we continue to do just fine in military matters and have the most advanced weaponry in the world. The wars we fight now are more like guerrilla wars and not conventional wars in the past but we do just fine and hold the line.
No you only mentioned NATO rules of engagement not what really happens in a combat zone.You also claim we are weak is another unproven statement of opinion. You claim that there is anti-military feelings in the US, what's new? I knew WWII vets that hated the military and the govt. for making them fight in a war they had no interest in, not to mention all the Nam vets I know that had the same opinion...
Where? You provided one statement I saw; that we can't fire unless fired upon. Which rule was that? I provided a copy of a ROE card which I got from Wiki and I saw nothing on it saying that we can't fire unless fired upon, which would indeed be somewhat limiting as strictly interpreted it would mean you can't ambush. What ARE our actual Rules of Engagement now? I said I can't find them. Can someone please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement#Authoritative_sources
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/5/increase-in-battlefield-deaths-linked-to-new-rules/ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/rules-of-engagement-military-force-mattis.html https://www.navytimes.com/opinion/e...-vs-petraeus-and-the-new-rules-of-engagement/ Third link shows the difference in just the last two administrations alone. Glad I helped clear up your confusion. Your hear to pick a partisan fight because you already are defending Obama.
What in the Bloody Blue Blanking FRACK are you talking about? WHERE did I mention or defend Obama in any way whatsoever?
Now that I've cited the context that you were so confused over, care to debate again? Now that you have your example that I ALREADY said earlier, we can move on from your partisan nonsense. You actually believe Russia, China, or Iran WOULD adhere to the NATO rules of engagement?
If they didn't I really don't think we would either. None of those articles you cited listed the actual rules or what you found objectionable in them besides the ONE example of not firing unless fired upon, ( which was actually having to be in "active contact with the enemy", which would not preclude an ambush)
All of those articles were just for the "wait to get shot" rule. I'm in command now, and I can tell you (especially from having been deployed while hearing the news) it was extremely dangerous for us. It limits the way you can surround and destroy the enemy. Because your position is blown, obviously, by waiting to get shot. If that rationale doesn't make sense to you, we need to go back to military sciences 101. How are you doing to win a war when you must wait to get shot? And I'm very impressed by the way with your faith in Russia, China, and Iran. You're a very trusting person I guess.
[ "Nothing in these Rules of Engagement limits your right to defend yourself from attacks or threats of attack" Which threat includes threats of being shot at , yes? Let's put this another way, since you say you're deployed now. What is it you want to be able to do that the present ROE prevent you from doing?
Incorrect. Once again, I should have specified in the OP that I'd appreciate someone with military experience/understanding to respond, because now we have this. I can lead a patrol through goat town Afghanistan. There are three people that take shots from 400 meters away on the mountain. By the time we get there (which is why they always fire from far away), we can't do anything because we see no gun (they hide them). And by do "anything" that includes MERELY investigating. Saving them the trouble of having to worry about their well being. I don't expect someone like you to understand why this type of warfare is not taught in military sciences. Some people just feel sympathy for the enemy. I personally do not.
