The Nightmare of US Combat Troops in Iraq

[Shooterman]

Summary: It is understandable that troops should feel anger and anxiety (as many do), because it is horrifically unjust for America to send its personnel into combat, deliberately prevent them from achieving victory--and expect them to die for the sake of the enemy.

Americans rightly admire our troops for their bravery, dedication and integrity. The Marines, for instance, are renowned for abiding by an honorable code--as warriors and as individuals in civilian life. They epitomize the rectitude of America's soldiers. But a recently disclosed Pentagon study--little noted in the media--has seemingly cast a shadow over our troops.

The study of U.S. combat troops in Iraq finds that less than half of the soldiers and Marines surveyed would report a team member for breaches of the military's ethics rules. Military and civilian observers have concluded from the study that more and stricter training in combat ethics is urgently needed.

But instead of reinforcing the military's ethics, we must challenge them. The Pentagon study provides evidence for a searing indictment not of our soldiers but of Washington's rules of engagement.

Consider the waking nightmare of being a U.S. combat troop in Iraq: imagine that you are thrust into a battlefield--but purposely hamstrung by absurd restrictions. Iraqis throw Molotov cocktails (i.e., gasoline-filled bottles) at your vehicle--but you are prohibited from responding with force. Iraqis, to quote the study, "drop large chunks of concrete blocks from second story buildings or overpasses" as you drive by--but you are not allowed to respond. "Every group of Soldiers and Marines interviewed," the Pentagon study summarizes, "reported that they felt the existing ROE [rules of engagement] tied their hands, preventing them from doing what needed to be done to win the war."

And the soldiers are right. In Iraq, Washington's rules have systematically prevented our brave and capable troops from using all necessary force to win, to crush the insurgency--and even to protect themselves. As noted in news articles since the start of the war, American forces are ordered not to bomb key targets, such as power plants, and to avoid firing into mosques (where insurgents hide) lest they offend Muslim sensibilities.

Having to follow such self-effacing rules of engagement while confronting sniper fire and ambushes and bombs from every direction, day in and day out, must be utterly demoralizing and unbearable. No one should be surprised at the newly reported willingness of combat troops to defy military ethics, because such defiance is understandable as the natural reaction of warriors made to follow suicidal rules.

When being "ethical" on Washington's terms means martyring yourself and your comrades for the sake of murderous Iraqis, it is understandable that troops are disinclined to report "unethical" behavior. It is understandable that troops should feel anger and anxiety (as many do), because it is horrifically unjust for America to send its personnel into combat, deliberately prevent them from achieving victory--and expect them to die for the sake of the enemy. It would be natural for an individual thrust into the line of fire as a sacrificial offering to rebel with indignation at such a fate.

How can we do this to our soldiers?

The death and misery caused by Washington's self-crippling rules of engagement--rules endorsed by liberals and conservatives alike--are part of the inevitable destruction flowing from a broader evil: the philosophy of "compassionate" war.

This perverse view of war holds that fighting selfishly to defend your own freedom by defeating enemies is wrong; but fighting to selflessly serve the needs of others is virtuous. It was on this premise that U.S. troops were sent to Iraq: Washington's goal was not to defend America against whatever threat Hussein's hostile regime posed to us, as a first step toward defeating our enemies in the region--principally Iran, the arch sponsor of Islamic totalitarianism. Instead the troops were sent (as Bush explained) to "sacrifice for the liberty of strangers"--spilling American blood and spending endless resources on the "compassionate" goal of lifting the hostile and primitive Iraqi people out of poverty, feeding their hungry, unclogging their sewers. The result of this "compassionate" war is thousands of unnecessary American deaths, and the preservation and emboldening of the enemies we most need to defeat: Iran and Saudi Arabia.

We must put an end to the barbarous sacrifice of American troops, now. It is past time to abandon Washington's self-sacrificial rules of engagement, and its broader policy of "compassionate," self-sacrificial warfare. Instead of subjecting troops to more intensive "ethics" training, we should unleash them from the suicidal militarily ethics of self-sacrifice.

Capitalism Magazine: The Nightmare of Being a U.S. Combat Troop in Iraq Hamstrung By Washington's Battlefield "Ethics" by Elan Journo

[satin_patriot]

I agree. We need to give them the ability, authority, and responsibility that goes with doing this job, so that they can actually get it done.

[Shooterman]

Originally Posted by satin_patriot

I agree. We need to give them the ability, authority, and responsibility that goes with doing this job, so that they can actually get it done.

Unfortunately that would mean the dumb butts in Washington leaving them alone and THAT ain't gonna happen. Those guys and gals are, as pointed out in the article, dying for the enemy.

[ptco911]

There was a sign of things to come in this conflict when they decided to go in with a third of the number of troops necessary. Bush and Rumsfeld were convinced that once Hussein was removed that everything would be rosy and the Shia and Sunnis would kiss and make up. They screwed up when they allowed the enemy troops to just take their uniforms off and fade back into the population. Now many of the enemy soldiers are in Iraqi security units by day and the insurgency by night. One retired general has already stated that the security forces should be disbanded and the new members meticulously screened.

Our politicians/their politicians have caused our soldiers to be unclear as to just what the objective is. The Democrats here are saying the war is lost, and their politicians (****e majority are sitting back doing nothing) while our soldiers and their people die.

I do agree that one of the main reasons for the war was to establish a major US presence in that region. It is very possible this is to be used for further actions against Iraq. The problem with that theory is, we don't have enough ground troops to really do the job in Iraq (political indecision) and certainly don't have enough to tangle with Iran on the ground. The other threads talk of a 3 day air blitz could be done, but would accomplish nothing.

Our soldiers are the finest in the world and second to none. I wish the same could be said of ourpolitical leaders and senior officers in the military. Some of the general officers are handcuffed by Washington others are sheep and need to find another profession.

[Snowden]

Our government is just too damn compassionate to the wrong people -- the enemy, and not at all compassionate or even intelligent to our military. We need a complete remake of Congress, as well as the Oval Office.

This is outrageous; unforgivable! We should demand all our representatives and senators be veterans of foreign wars -- or a revolution, if that's taken up soon as it should be. We can do it in the voting booth -- but will we? No way. The familiar name always gets the majority.

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by Snowden

We should demand all our representatives and senators be veterans of foreign wars -- or a revolution, if that's taken up soon as it should be. We can do it in the voting booth -- but will we? No way. The familiar name always gets the majority.

We can only affect the representatives and senators in our own states since the Constitution leaves that to the individual states to do. As for demanding that they be veterans of foreign wars, look at Kerry, Murtha and Inoye (sp?).

[sfga6970]

Senator Inouye was also a WWII vet in the 442 Inf Regiment, won the Medal of Honor and lost his arm during a battle. He was in the most highly decorated unit during the war, they were all of Japanese descent.