“Got No Positive Identification Where It’s Coming From.”
“So we can’t shoot until we can see that individual with that weapon…pointed at us.”
Oh, God bless ’em.
Military Thingies, Morality, Politics | tree hugging sister | 
September 24, 2009 8:34 am
Subscribe
I can’t hear the video right now, but I take it that there’s some complaint about the implied rule of engagement. As stated above, it’s not much different from the rules we had in Iraq. Before using deadly force, you have to see hostile intent and positive ID.
This is a very simple standard, understandable and easy to remember.
When you have a bunch of men carrying weapons, there must be a way of controlling them. You can’t have them killing someone every time they see someone.
The purpose of a counter insurgency is to get the people on our side. As they learn that we can be trusted, they eventually start supporting us. It’s a strategy that works.
In a population where everyone carries a gun, you can’t go around shooting every person that is armed.
In Iraq, there were some acts that were presumed to be hostile. Using a shovel on the road is one example, though I remember there being a problem with road repair crews that we paid for! We learned it’s best to escort repair crews. I heard of some places where using a cell phone was considered a hostile act.
I’d much rather glass over all of Afghanistan, they deserve no better for supporting Al Qaeda and it would serve as an excellent warning to others, but this is not permitted by our people. The counter-insurgency is one of the few viable alternatives. The only other viable alternative is to send a few hundred thousand, or possibly a million, soldiers and Marines in the country and be everywhere at all times to pacify the place. That’s a bit too expensive for our political class.