THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
. . . are too stringent. Permission must be asked before firing back at jihadists shooting from a mosque. Shooting unarmed civilians--even if these are communicating with and directing armed jihadists is not allowed. You shoot at anybody that's not actively posing a danger to you--pointing a weapon, and there is the chance of courts-martial.
I am not alone in stating that the Rules of Engagement for our troops are too stringent. Colonel (ret) David Hunt whose Book On the Hunt is just out thinks the same.
Why such great care? We want the world--especially the Islamic world--to see us as "the good guys." believing that the Islamics will warm up to us. They won't. We want to be fair, moral, just, nice, helpful, loyal, to our enemies. They DO NOT respect that. If one wants to win against Islamics, who do not share our moral code, best to be the bad-ass.
The enemy understands humiliation. He uses it constantly on us, deriding us, our civilization, our troops. He calls us infidels, kafirs, meaning something to be despised for our disbelief in the god allah and in his "messenger" you-know-who. He wants us to feel inferior to the "noble" Arab invention that is the ideology called Islam.
Humiliation, though, is also one of the foremost fears in his mind: to be humiliated, his ideology mocked, and he himself treated as an abject no-account murderer. The U.S., from the President down, was horrified when the Islamic prisoners at Abu Graib were humiliated.
Although unappetizing and needlessly documented digitally, Abu Graib should have been used as an example of what Islamic murderers could expect if captured. Instead we (starting with our President) threw up our arms in horror. We could not apologize to the entire Islamic world enough: Taken by it as a sign of our weakness and stupidity. It was used to embarass us (who should not have been embarassed).
When civilians become collateral casualties, we are horrified. we would rather have our own troops make the ultimate sacrifice than to incur collateral casualties while wiping out those who came to kill our troops.
As long as we pussyfoot around, trying to be kind to an enemy that is determined to destroy us--all of us, young and old--we will be seen as weak and undeserving of respect.
It is doubtful that jihadists want to be treated as so many naked monkeys . Bereft of penis and testicles, they cannot function satisfactorily with the virgins in paradise. Without a head, they cannot see the marvels of that place, nor drink the wine and cool water. If these fates are offered them if caught fighting us--unprovoked as they have been doing, it could cool their ardor to come and "kill Americans."
"Muslims only understand the language of blood and death, they respect only an adversary more ruthless than themselves, they despise qualities like chivalry, fair play, compassion, and forgiveness. These qualities, are for the Muslims, a signature of an adversary’s weakness and stupidity."
How Islam was Nearly Destroyed
And then, this Comment at Jihad Watch:
Jihad Watch
. . . are too stringent. Permission must be asked before firing back at jihadists shooting from a mosque. Shooting unarmed civilians--even if these are communicating with and directing armed jihadists is not allowed. You shoot at anybody that's not actively posing a danger to you--pointing a weapon, and there is the chance of courts-martial.
I am not alone in stating that the Rules of Engagement for our troops are too stringent. Colonel (ret) David Hunt whose Book On the Hunt is just out thinks the same.
Why such great care? We want the world--especially the Islamic world--to see us as "the good guys." believing that the Islamics will warm up to us. They won't. We want to be fair, moral, just, nice, helpful, loyal, to our enemies. They DO NOT respect that. If one wants to win against Islamics, who do not share our moral code, best to be the bad-ass.
The enemy understands humiliation. He uses it constantly on us, deriding us, our civilization, our troops. He calls us infidels, kafirs, meaning something to be despised for our disbelief in the god allah and in his "messenger" you-know-who. He wants us to feel inferior to the "noble" Arab invention that is the ideology called Islam.
Humiliation, though, is also one of the foremost fears in his mind: to be humiliated, his ideology mocked, and he himself treated as an abject no-account murderer. The U.S., from the President down, was horrified when the Islamic prisoners at Abu Graib were humiliated.
Although unappetizing and needlessly documented digitally, Abu Graib should have been used as an example of what Islamic murderers could expect if captured. Instead we (starting with our President) threw up our arms in horror. We could not apologize to the entire Islamic world enough: Taken by it as a sign of our weakness and stupidity. It was used to embarass us (who should not have been embarassed).
When civilians become collateral casualties, we are horrified. we would rather have our own troops make the ultimate sacrifice than to incur collateral casualties while wiping out those who came to kill our troops.
As long as we pussyfoot around, trying to be kind to an enemy that is determined to destroy us--all of us, young and old--we will be seen as weak and undeserving of respect.
It is doubtful that jihadists want to be treated as so many naked monkeys . Bereft of penis and testicles, they cannot function satisfactorily with the virgins in paradise. Without a head, they cannot see the marvels of that place, nor drink the wine and cool water. If these fates are offered them if caught fighting us--unprovoked as they have been doing, it could cool their ardor to come and "kill Americans."
"Muslims only understand the language of blood and death, they respect only an adversary more ruthless than themselves, they despise qualities like chivalry, fair play, compassion, and forgiveness. These qualities, are for the Muslims, a signature of an adversary’s weakness and stupidity."
How Islam was Nearly Destroyed
And then, this Comment at Jihad Watch:
Jihad Watch
A.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
"The Army is not flexible enough or well trained enough to win a counterinsurgency."
...The military cannot win any conflict if you do not support the military and do not allow the military to kill the enemy....
....in Vietnam, the insipid rules of engagement hampered most enemy contacts....the same insipid rules of engagement are now in Iraq....
....if you do not allow the military to do military things, then in all haste , pull them out , send them back to the US and wait for the enemy to show up in St Louis...
Posted by: exsgtbrown