Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Who Supports the Troops?

One of the most important issues after when to fight a war is how to fight. Regardless of whether one agrees that Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran or Kosovo is the place to fight, one must support our troops by allowing them to fight to the fullest. They must be allowed to defend themselves first and foremost. Previously, Cubed, has written on the topic. Brook and Epstein published an important piece last year. Grant Jones has an excellent follow-up today.

Why have the absurd rules of engagement taken a back-seat in the current debate? With both sides gushing forth with proclamations that they support the troops first and foremost, why have our troops been hamstrung and delivered with their hands tied for the enemy to kill? I can think of reasons why the left desires this policy but why do conservatives allow it with so little outrage? Again, read the articles above.

Update: Diana West gets it. (H/T Grant).


Blogger Freedomnow said...

The average moonbat troll would believe that it would be more patriotic to spread enemy propaganda in order to bring the troops home and save their lives.

Perhaps we should have thought about that during WWII.

After all, Roosevelt "knew" about the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor in advance, but he "lied" and used it as a "pretext" for an illegal war against a sovereign nation... Unilaterally going to war without approval from the League of Nations.

We didn’t send enough troops to the Philippines and didn’t supply them with the tools they needed to win. Our strategy was faulty and we left our planes on the runways so the Japanese were able to catch them on the ground, tightly parked together as easy targets.

The landings on Tarawa were botched and our troops suffered horrible loses.

Military intelligence during Operation Market Garden and the Battle of the Bulge were misused for political purposes and as a result our commanders failed to adequately support their troops.

Let’s bring our troops home retroactively!!!!!!!!!!!!


7/10/07, 11:57 PM  
Blogger Ducky's here said...

Let's see, conflating WW II (or more properly The Great Patriotic War) with Iraq. That tears the fabric of reason.

Now, just what is the objective in Iraq. Recently John Howard admitted that Australia was there to protect the oil. I rather despise the stupid old queen but I have to give him points for honesty.

Are we in Iraq to destroy al-Qaeda? I wouldn't be opposed to that but the logistics seem impossible unless, like Jason, you don't mind indiscriminate killing.

Or are we there to contain Iran because they have our "special ally" Israel all upset? Well, first off I'd ask what strategic importance Israel holds and just why it's our fight. Of course, the economic sanctions seem to be working much better than the stupidity of military threats.

The American public has initially supported an invasion and occupation which has turned a nation into an utter craphole and participated a wanton slaughter of civilians. The fact that they do not wish our nation to continue to act like a feral animal should be applauded.

...but Jason, just don't fall into the silliness of saying we are there to "protect our freedoms".

7/11/07, 10:42 AM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

Obviously you completely ignore that I'm addressing "how to fight" and not if we should fight in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc. Try another thread of you want to talk about the criteria for going to war, the goals of the administration, or other possibilities short of war.

7/11/07, 11:16 AM  
Blogger Ducky's here said...

You said nothing about how to fight except that you have some concern about the rules of engagement.

As I said, your "rules of engagement" boils down to one rule .. "kill Arabs" (or more properly Muslims). Now that rule informs us about your larger insane strategic goals.

7/11/07, 11:31 AM  
Blogger Freedomnow said...


In war a good strategy is to kill people that are trying to kill you. The fact that you have difficulty with that concept shows that you are beyond reason.

Anyways, is this the first time that you have heard of the conspiracy theory that Roosevelt knew about the Pearl Harbor attacks in advance? I dont think that even you are that uninformed.

This was the mother of conspiracy theories and the template for Anti-Bush Hysteria in the 21st Century. You even buy into it in your own comment. Know your history...



7/11/07, 11:49 AM  
Blogger Ducky's here said...

What does FDR have to do with the occupation of Iraq and the rules of engagement?

Now, let's go back to the issue of more aggressive rules of engagement and just what strategic purpose that would accomplish. My premise is that Jason wants all out war and destruction of Muslims without any particular regard to anything else.

Evidently we "win" when we have killed or subjugated all the "bad" Muslims. I can only believe that point of view is the result of some kind of testosterone poisoning because it certainly doesn't conform to any reasonable calculus.

7/11/07, 1:50 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

The rules of engagement are based on the need to kill the enemy, protect the troops, and prepare of the post-war peace, in that order. Read the articles in the links to see how our troops are hampered.

As for when to fight a war, I'll leave that to another post. (Let no unaddressed comment be an assumption of agreement.)

7/11/07, 2:01 PM  
Blogger Jeffrey Perren said...

"[W]hy do conservatives allow it with so little outrage?"

They have been intellectually and morally disarmed by modern ideas such as egalitarianism and multiculturalism.

(These are just two examples out of a mix, the blend of which really has no name beyond the rather misleading and useless one of 'post-modernism'. Misleading because the ideas are ancient, useless because it doesn't name the essence of the philosophy. Since it it isn't fundamentally a political philosophy, calling it leftist is also inadequate.)

In short, they don't believe in their bones that we have the right to kill the enemy. Yet, some part of them retains the basic rationality and self-assertiveness that are part of the American character. Hence, their halting, inconsistent behavior.

7/11/07, 2:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the link, Jason. Wow, you have the ubertroll. "Great Patriotic War," ROTFLMAO.

7/11/07, 2:57 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

I forgot, the Soviets called WWII the "Great Patriot War." Of course, that was the last war the left believes we should have fought ... because we fought alongside their darlings in Red. Some people can't hide their colors. If it walks like a ...

Thanks Jeff, you're right. The conservatives aren't immune to the wider cultural trends. It takes a fight to resist the dominant ideas of a culture. "Conserving" isn't a battle cry.

Freedomnow is right; there's been a great cultural change since WWII. It would be unimaginable to say such things back then.

7/11/07, 3:36 PM  
Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

Well, you have to consider that Democrats are now hesitant to just outright say "we want to kill Americans troops by the trainload," and have been since they lost the Civil War and were forced to wear white sheets and hoods at their cross burning political fundraisers.

Sure, there's been some unashamedly Democrat politicians like John Kerry rallying to just give Iran bomb grade uranium so they don't have to refine it themselves, but those types are still unelectable on a national level.

So, the successful Democrat is more subtle. They know laying siege to a military base in their states will bring a bloody war down upon their shoulders, even if that base was under-armed due to defense budget cuts by the last Democrat president in office.

Just look at the history of Ft. Sumter and President James Buchanan's budgets.

And that gives a clue insight into the core Democrat motivation. Democrats are living vicariously through Al Qaeda terrorists because they know real Americans will crush them in a stand up fight.

And they know Republicans are adept at keeping deployed US forces alive in combat operations.

Just look at the combat casualty rates of of every Democrat president that ever commited troops to battle. Democrats will claw at military budgets as much as they can when they're not powerful enough to just outright order 8,226 people to charge machine gun nests to their deaths on Iwo Jima.

Republicans prefer to bombard the enemy with bombs, not living American flesh.

So, it's a basic philosophical difference really.

7/11/07, 4:14 PM  
Blogger Freedomnow said...

Lets get back to the subject of this post.

Who Supports the Troops? Those who actually support the troops or those that defame them?

As Jason said, the name "Great Patriotic War" is the domain of your kindred spirits in the Soviet Union during WWII Ducky.

This war can be more accurately described as the "War Against Genocidal Terrorists". An enemy that you dont care to fight, but would rather spend your time accusing your fellow democrats of bogus crimes. That is if you actually believe in democracy (or the republic if you want to be technical).

7/11/07, 4:28 PM  
Blogger SNAKE HUNTERS said...

My, but the Intellectual Elite do have their pet theories on Why We Are At War, don't they?

Let a U.S. Marine in Iraq speak on the subject of "How To..."

It's "Double Tap", not Double-talk! reb


7/12/07, 12:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, were is the money for continuing? Where are the weapons, the bullets, the shields and body armor and vehicle armor? Where are the full meals with calories necessary to support the energy of the men? Where are the uniforms and boots?

There's none. None left! That's what!

What is there to support? The men have nothing!

IO support the troops by having them come home!


It's been a waste of 5 years and human lives and suffering!

Anyone still wanting the war, to them I say: "Here's you gun, yours your parachute and your plane ticket. Go to IT!

7/12/07, 5:39 PM  
Blogger unaha-closp said...

"With both sides gushing forth with proclamations that they support the troops first and foremost, why have our troops been hamstrung and delivered with their hands tied for the enemy to kill?"

Grant Jones gives examples of Iraqis throwing rocks and molotovs at the troops. These are almost totally non-lethal against armoured vehicles and do not kill the troops. If freer ROE were in place then the troops would be able to open fire on the rock/petrol bomb throwers and these engagements (insurgents non-lethal/Americans deadly force) would take place in urban enviroments where scattering of return fire is expected. The resultant casualties would be 99% American caused and 1% insurgent caused, if this happens two or three times then there is a history of American "massacres" that motivate more Iraqi insurgents and encourages them to use deadly force in revenge. Freeing up the ROE in this way would presumably result in more hostiles bringing more violence and making more American dead.

The best thing Americans can do when confronted with an attack of non-lethal force is not to reply. The current ROE are good news in this regard.

7/12/07, 6:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yep, molotov cocktails are not deadly when used against vehicles. This don't shoot the looters and thugs policy has also worked wonders for Israel.

7/12/07, 9:45 PM  
Blogger unaha-closp said...

Israel is irrelevent, they are not trying to win political alliance with the local Arabs and America is.

Jason almost gets it right: "The rules of engagement are based on the need to kill the enemy..."

The rules of engagement are designed to damage the enemy first and foremost. A good way to do this is make it as difficult as possible for them to gain recruits and sympathy. Firing lethal weapons on rock throwers compromises this objective by creating innocent victims who happen to down range at the time of firing which antagonises their relatives and countrymen.

7/12/07, 10:25 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

No war is won by taking hits and not returning fire in the hopes of “winning hearts and minds.” Supplication, groveling, and “turning the other cheek” don’t win wars. It only earns contempt. This is particularly true when fighting a savage enemy.

7/12/07, 11:20 PM  
Blogger Freedomnow said...

We have a precarious balance between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

Critics said it couldnt be done, but it is done every day in Iraq. To accomplish this our troops negotiate with Shieks and other local Iraqis all the time. Those negotiations would be impossible if our troops were blood thirsty murderers.

They know what they are doing and thats why they are making inroads into the communities of all ethnic groups.

7/13/07, 3:31 AM  
Blogger unaha-closp said...

Savage enemies do not confine themselves to throwing rocks.

7/13/07, 5:22 AM  
Blogger beakerkin said...


Lets be honest about the Duck. He is practicing Revolutionary Defeatism. This has been the policy of Communists in every major struggle. Trotsky even urged this philosophy in the USA in WW2.

The Duck can switch Marx for the Koran and change outfits and repeat the same slogans.

Aflack Ahkbar !!!!!

7/16/07, 1:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I sent you a couple of emails.

I'm appearing here as anonymous because I don't have time to sign into Blogger at the moment. Gotta run!

~Always On Watch

7/23/07, 7:23 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

why do conservatives allow it with so little outrage?

Because the just-war theory has been promoted by schools and by the media for at least three decades. Even many conservatives no longer know that just-war ROE will not win a war.

7/24/07, 8:42 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home