You have probably seen me repeatedly posting about Rules of Engagement [ROE] the last short time. That is because I just became aware.
I read about this and thought it so unfair I had to let the public know what our military was subjected to in the course of doing what they were trained for
The media got a hold of this idea that US Marines were shooting innocent civilians and others clearly not engaged in hostilities. So the rules became very convoluted. In order to be absolutely sure you would not be tried in a military court for murder was to let the Taliban shoot 1st. If you shot 1st, who was to say he was just going for a cup of coffee. Even way up in the mountains where the Pastun mostly sided with and protected the Taliban, you could not shoot 1st, because he might be a goat herder.
I am not making this stuff up.
Go to Briebart or any place where Trump has said he will personally investigate charges brought against that army major for killing the Taliban bomb maker.
This bomb maker had killed the majors team mates That is all I know about that court martial as they do tend to keep that sort of stuff under wraps from the public.
It got so bad that in a fire fight, if the Taliban was losing, they simply threw their guns on the ground and surrendered. If they were winning do you think they would throw their guns on the ground and surrender
SO; The military was operating under orders such as this during the BO administration. Trump is investigating a court martial of events that happened many yrs ago. As one pundit said the media and ROE are more dangerous than the Taliban.
I just thought I should bring this to your attention. I have no idea what our ROE might be today, but I do know many court martials took place in the past and folks are in jail as a result
I skipped over the details of the actual court martial and the uproar about Trump saying he would investigate. How many lives have been lost because people waited for the other side to shoot 1st is unknown. You do know the argument could be made the bomb maker was mistaken ID and an innocent civilian was just drinking a cup f coffee. The bomb maker was not actually engaged in making a bomb so who knows who he was. Accusations came be bogus you know, until you catch them with the real goods.
If you don't believe me, or think the ROE are just fine as they are, that is your choice. When I saw the article in Briebart I thought this would at least give you people an avenue to get some information and decide for yourself. That is also why I asked what the current ROE might be.
Here's the actual letter to the president:
https://images.kusi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/POTUS.Golsteyn.121418.pdf
During peace and in normal society, murder is a crime.
During a war and when you are facing somebody that just killed 2 of your comrades and that killer is entirely committed to the same cause, killing others from your side...........do you let him go to kill other camrads?
This is more than revenge(which likely did play a role and is not justified).
Can marines only kill the enemy when the enemy is in the act of trying to kill them on the battlefield?
If we limit them to this, then the enemy has a big advantage. Keep in mind the environment, mentality and objectives and thus, the application of laws is much different in this setting.
How many Americans killed the enemy in previous wars while the enemy was sleeping and it was considered a good thing?
The bad thing about a letter to the president, is that if Trump gives him a possibly deserved pardon(if the circumstances justify it), one side will automatically be against this guy and he will be labelled as the murderer that Trump pardoned for the rest of his life.
Seriously.
https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2017/10/03/mattis-reveals-new-rules-of-engagement/
"U.S. forces are no longer bound by requirements to be in contact with enemy forces in Afghanistan before opening fire, thanks to a change in rules of engagement orchestrated by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis.
"Mattis, appearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joe Dunford, told a pair of congressional hearings that the White House* gave him a free hand to reconsider the rules of engagement and alter them to speed the battle against the Taliban if need be.
"Over the last several years, many top officials in Washington have advocated for a loosening of the rules of engagement that dictate how troops conduct combat operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
"Changes could allow the U.S. military to move more quickly to defeat terrorist organizations. Rules of engagement are classified, and military officials generally do not discuss them."
* an atta-boy to Trump.
Great post Carl!
So how many people are currently in jail due to the previous ROE
If Trump or an aide investigates each court martial, during previous ROE, not only will the media have a self righteous field day, but the military courts will object to political interference and so will congress who write the laws and are supposed to be an oversight committe
On the other hand how can Trump justify investigating just one court martial and ignoring numerous others that may be similar. I would be a bit bitter [in fact a lot and I would holler for a lawyer, and equal treatment] if I am sitting in jail for upwards of 40 yrs for doing what I thought the military trained me to do and then a bunch of do gooders are the root cause of me just escaping the death sentence and here I sit whilst Trump gave somebody else a chance at freedom, or something, and ignored my situation.
What a can of worms this could become
There are many deaths and court martials due to the media and BO decision. And BO was the person who boasted he could kill any person on the planet.
Go figger.
Metmike, "do you let them go to kill your comrades"...and we wonder how these rules of engagement got so convoluted we cannot even leave the battle field because we cannot properly end the damn battle....and yes our former President Obama actually released POW's so they could kill our boys