Friday, October 9, 2009

Rules of Engagement

Our soldiers are "fighting with one arm tied behind our backs". Our king-commander-in-chief has announced (publicly) that he is restricting our soldiers to new "rules-of-engagement". Since the Nobel Peace Prize wiener, I mean winner, does not want to feel any responsibility for collateral damage in the war, he has limited how our fighting men and women can respond to being under attack.

Now, when our brave soldiers receive incoming fire, before they can fire back, they must first determine exactly where the fire came from, determine who fired, make sure that there are no "innocent" civilians in the vicinity of the enemy; and then maybe they can return fire.

The enemy sees this as a weakness and they are more than willing to take advantage of this limitation on us fighting back. All we have done is tell the enemy that all they have to do is shoot at us from the middle of a group of people, or from a residence, and we will not fight back.

Remember in Iraq, when the enemy took refuge in Mosques. We had rules to not fire on a Mosque, so that is exactly where the enemy would stay. They would shoot at us with no fear of being attacked.

This is how to lose a war. This reminds me of how our President and other politicians limited our soldiers in Vietnam. For some reason, we do not do what it takes to win. We limit our fighters with rules so that we can gain respect and favor with the rest of the liberal world. Our enemy has no rules of limitation - they fight to win. They do what it takes to be victorious.

A few years ago, I asked Dad about how the Japanese were ruthless in WWII; how they attacked Pearl Harbor without declaring war, first; about how they were brutal to prisoners, etc. I expected him to say something condemning about the way they fought. Instead, his response was, "They fought to win." I am sure that neither he nor I would think we should be like the Japs or Nazis in WWII, but we do need to remember how to fight, as we did in WWII.

Would that great group of people be referred to as "the greatest generation" if they had been forced to conduct a war with the rules we now use? I do not think so, because the war would have been lost with those restrictions. We hold in high regard those who fought in WWII because they were brave, did the dirty work, and they won! We never would have defeated Germany if we could not bomb the fatherland for fear of killing other than enemy soldiers. In order to defeat Japan, we were willing and preparing to invade Japan and fight and kill civilians. We never would have dropped the atomic bombs under today's rules of engagement.

This leads me to wonder (not really) whether we would use like-kind retaliation if we, on our own land, were attacked with weapons of mass destruction? If a nuclear missile were to hit one of our cities and we knew who sent it, would we use a similar missile to attack back? Under this administration's rules, we would not. After all, we cannot blame the people who live in an evil country for the evil that comes from that country. BO would tell us to "grin and bear it". This, in turn, would get BO nominated for his second Nobel Peace Prize, and get a lot of us dead.

No comments:

Post a Comment