Connect with us on Facebook
Mountain Parrot on Milford Trek - photo by JoAnn Sturman
Just 22% of members of Congress today have also served in the military — the lowest number since World War II. - USA Today November 2011
Scott Sturman
fliesinyoureyes.com
There is nothing like a politician going through the motions of praising the men and women of the United States military. It is one of those boxes that need to be checked even if one never took the time to serve or privately holds the martial professions in low esteem. Yet despite this lack of experience and understanding of military ways, few in Congress are shy when it comes to dictating the manner in which modern warfare should be conducted.
If the young men and women who defend our liberties were as precious to our leaders as they are to us, every effort would be made to insure their well being and define rules of engagement (R.O.E.) which are compatible to fighting a non uniformed enemy which purposely blends into the general population. A cynic could make the observation that as long as the soldiers, sailors, and airmen are some other's relatives, then the current ambiguity is acceptable in the politically correct world.
Marcus Luttrell discussed this dilemma in his book Sole Survivor, where four Navy Seals were inserted into an area teeming with hostile Taliban high in the mountains of Afghanistan. Despite being vastly out numbered, they were given the objective of kidnapping a ruthless local insurgent and returning him to base for interrogation. Success hinged on total secrecy, but as luck would have it, three goat herders stumbled across the Seals on a hill top near the village where the Taliban were hiding. What to do? Kill the intruders and save themselves or let them go and hope they will not inform the Taliban of their presence?
The life or death decision was left to a vote, a procedure which works in Congress but has no place on the battlefield. One Seal opted to kill the shepherds rather than put the mission and their lives in jeopardy. The commanding officer insisted they be freed not only for moral reasons but due to the potential public relations fall out if the executions were discovered by the press. The third Seal abstained, but stated he would vote with Luttrell. Against his better judgment Luttrell elected to ignore caution and hope the Afghan's would keep their presence a secret, knowing full well the decision placed all of them in serious peril.
Tragically, of the four mission members only Luttrell survived the subsequent Taliban attack. When attempting to rescue them, eight other Seals and eight Army Pathfinders were killed instantly when a rocket propelled grenade destroyed their helicopter in flight. In all nineteen intensively trained Americans died needlessly and left behind their wives, children, and families, all to avoid punishment for violating the rules of engagement and running afoul of the press.
Douglas Haig served as Supreme Commander of the British Expeditionary Forces in World War I. He is also infamous for wasting the lives of over 400,000 soldiers to gain less than ten miles of land at the Battle of the Somme. He notoriously insisted his command post be situated well back from the front lines, so his decisions would not be influenced by witnessing the carnage of combat. Nowadays, cameras and cell phones are ubiquitous, and potentially no event goes unreported to the press. The photographic account can be presented to the public devoid of context and manipulated for propaganda purposes. When soldiers die rather than suffer recriminations of the press or risk court martial for mistakenly killing a non combatant, they should not be sent to war in the first place.
Fourth dimensional warfare is a very dirty business where members of the armed services are forced to be policemen and community service workers as well as soldiers. They are expected to respond appropriately and instantly to any threat in an environment where foe and friend are impossible to distinguish. Terrorists are aware of these constraints and exploit them to their military advantage.
The experiences in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have been expensive, prolonged, and cost far too many American lives. In all these conflicts the political establishment has set the parameters of warfare which made it impossible to achieve success. Theories abound concerning the manner in which to wage these wars, but any parent, spouse, or sibling sensibly would affirm rules of engagement must give the benefit of the doubt to the American soldier. Members of the press and politicians may bristle, but the objective should be decisive victory with as few American casualties as possible. Hopefully we will see the day when the media demonstrates as much concern for the welfare of American troops as they do head injuries on the football field.
Just 22% of members of Congress today have also served in the military — the lowest number since World War II. - USA Today November 2011
Scott Sturman
fliesinyoureyes.com
There is nothing like a politician going through the motions of praising the men and women of the United States military. It is one of those boxes that need to be checked even if one never took the time to serve or privately holds the martial professions in low esteem. Yet despite this lack of experience and understanding of military ways, few in Congress are shy when it comes to dictating the manner in which modern warfare should be conducted.
If the young men and women who defend our liberties were as precious to our leaders as they are to us, every effort would be made to insure their well being and define rules of engagement (R.O.E.) which are compatible to fighting a non uniformed enemy which purposely blends into the general population. A cynic could make the observation that as long as the soldiers, sailors, and airmen are some other's relatives, then the current ambiguity is acceptable in the politically correct world.
Marcus Luttrell discussed this dilemma in his book Sole Survivor, where four Navy Seals were inserted into an area teeming with hostile Taliban high in the mountains of Afghanistan. Despite being vastly out numbered, they were given the objective of kidnapping a ruthless local insurgent and returning him to base for interrogation. Success hinged on total secrecy, but as luck would have it, three goat herders stumbled across the Seals on a hill top near the village where the Taliban were hiding. What to do? Kill the intruders and save themselves or let them go and hope they will not inform the Taliban of their presence?
The life or death decision was left to a vote, a procedure which works in Congress but has no place on the battlefield. One Seal opted to kill the shepherds rather than put the mission and their lives in jeopardy. The commanding officer insisted they be freed not only for moral reasons but due to the potential public relations fall out if the executions were discovered by the press. The third Seal abstained, but stated he would vote with Luttrell. Against his better judgment Luttrell elected to ignore caution and hope the Afghan's would keep their presence a secret, knowing full well the decision placed all of them in serious peril.
Tragically, of the four mission members only Luttrell survived the subsequent Taliban attack. When attempting to rescue them, eight other Seals and eight Army Pathfinders were killed instantly when a rocket propelled grenade destroyed their helicopter in flight. In all nineteen intensively trained Americans died needlessly and left behind their wives, children, and families, all to avoid punishment for violating the rules of engagement and running afoul of the press.
Douglas Haig served as Supreme Commander of the British Expeditionary Forces in World War I. He is also infamous for wasting the lives of over 400,000 soldiers to gain less than ten miles of land at the Battle of the Somme. He notoriously insisted his command post be situated well back from the front lines, so his decisions would not be influenced by witnessing the carnage of combat. Nowadays, cameras and cell phones are ubiquitous, and potentially no event goes unreported to the press. The photographic account can be presented to the public devoid of context and manipulated for propaganda purposes. When soldiers die rather than suffer recriminations of the press or risk court martial for mistakenly killing a non combatant, they should not be sent to war in the first place.
Fourth dimensional warfare is a very dirty business where members of the armed services are forced to be policemen and community service workers as well as soldiers. They are expected to respond appropriately and instantly to any threat in an environment where foe and friend are impossible to distinguish. Terrorists are aware of these constraints and exploit them to their military advantage.
The experiences in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have been expensive, prolonged, and cost far too many American lives. In all these conflicts the political establishment has set the parameters of warfare which made it impossible to achieve success. Theories abound concerning the manner in which to wage these wars, but any parent, spouse, or sibling sensibly would affirm rules of engagement must give the benefit of the doubt to the American soldier. Members of the press and politicians may bristle, but the objective should be decisive victory with as few American casualties as possible. Hopefully we will see the day when the media demonstrates as much concern for the welfare of American troops as they do head injuries on the football field.
No comments:
Post a Comment