Analyst's note: Absolutely must read and carefully consider. If you think that remembering our veterans on this one day each year is enough -- you are wrong. Some of us will argue that this is "dead wrong" in terms of our sons and daughters who serve in our armed forces.
As one would expect, John Bernard, a retired Marine First Sergeant, in this article speaks clearly and provides the needed insight into the subjects associated with 'Rules of Engagement' (ROE) and the Doctrine of Counter Insurgency (COIN), all blended with a generous amount of apathy from our federal government.. He points out that if an enemy -- which it was and continues to be -- is not assessed accurately, either due to ignorance or for politically correct reasons, it will always be more difficult to defeat that enemy.
Our troops -- members of our American family -- continue to bleed and die unnecessarily. Our nation remains in great peril as the result of faulty "situation assessments" that lead to employing the Counter Insurgency (COIN) strategy for combat operations against our global Islamist jihadist enemy. Political correctness and the efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood operating in our country today continue to blind and tether the United States. I for one have grown extremely tired of ignorant "civilian experts" in federal positions and academics (this accounts for some in uniform) who are killing our troops just as surely as if they were pulling the trigger or setting the IEDs themselves.
Consider yourself being directed to fight under such conditions. The lives of your sons and daughters serving in the military in Afghanistan are thought, by most, to be endangered by violations of ROE. These ROE were to have been created by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was recently relieved of command, and was then replaced by Gen. David Petraeus. In fact, Gen McChrystal's senior commanding officer had been Gen. David Petraeus. Gen. David Petraeus now has the "opportunity to excel" in terms of getting the Rules of Engagement fixed. Just how quickly will this change come about, if at all? We now can see this is "not so much."
No doubt my thoughts expressed here to those who have not fought will be unpopular in some circles, but this old Marine believes they need to be said. And last check I still have freedom of speech. Quoting General Lewis W. Walt, USMC (one of my favorite Generals) - I know I'm dating myself - "I think the future of our country boils down to this simple proposition: either we as individual Americans will assume the responsibilities of citizenship or our nation, as the land of the free, will be destroyed" (page 98, The Eleventh Hour). Responsibility includes speaking out, especially when we see that the fate of our nation is involved. It is good to remember that our individual welfare and fate are NOT separate and distinct from that of our nation.
I grew up at a time when war was considered "hell on earth" and I agree with this well-written article. I never have followed the concept of "Lets have a war, the worst you can do is break even -- want to play?" We are engaged in a war that will likely last for my lifetime and beyond - the theaters may change - in the Middle East, I'm not always sure for what, but we seem to have no objection if the global Islamist jihadist enemy brings the fight to us through subversion, infiltration, or by some other coalition.
There are four long forgotten principles of war - old, but still valid -- that I believe must guide our continued efforts at bringing this war to a close. Sorry, Mr. Obama, it does NOT include a public withdrawal date of our fighting forces now engaged with the enemy. To do so puts you directly responsible for the ensuing deaths of our loved ones from the time of the announcement. And yes, you will answer -- if not at the next election -- certainly in the eternities to follow.
General Curtis E. LeMay (USAF) is the source of these valid principles and they are found generally expressed in U.S. News and World Report, October 10, 1966.
First -- War is serious and dangerous business and it does not lessen its seriousness -- especially for those who are on the front line or otherwise engaged in combat -- by calling it a "police action" or a "limited" war. War, any war, should have objectives that are both clear and worthy of sacrifice of human life. As stated by Theodore Roosevelt, 1917 - "The only proper rule is never to fight at all if you can honorably avoid it, but never under any circumstances to fight in a half-hearted way. When peace come, it must be the peace of complete victory."
Second - Even small wars are cruel and must be fought in such a way as to win them as quickly as possible. Under no circumstances do so-called political considerations justify prolonging the slaughter when it is possible to have victory.
Third -- In his own words, I can still hear General LeMay say, "Never to point a gun at someone unless you are prepared to shoot him dead. A bluff in warfare should never be attempted unless one fully intends to back it up, if need be."
Fourth -- "The popular philosophy that we can, by cautious and timid military tactics, keep the war from escalating into a larger conflict is the ultimate in military blindness. The only way to win a war is to escalate it in one way or another above what the enemy can take. If we feel that we can't win without unacceptable risk, we have no business fighting in the first place .... Thus, when-ever we commit our young men to mortal combat, we should be equally prepared to commit our leaders, our cities, our families and civilians -- our own or the enemy's. Modern war is that serious, and we should not forget it."
Now for the thoughtful article by fellow Marine, John Bernard, a retired Marine First Sergeant, being discussed here.
"I was brought into a thread started by a concerned citizen over the debacle in Afghanistan (the Pentagon really) and asked to put in my two cents. For what it is worth; here is what I shared:
We can fully expect the Rules of Engagement to continue to tighten and become even more deadly to our troops as time passes. The reason I say this has absolutely nothing to do with some ethereal ‘gifting’ some will imagine I possess but simply because I understand what has promulgated the need for them.
In the thread that was passed on to me earlier today; someone asked if there was a way to determine exactly how many American troops and Marines had been killed by the ROE and my answer is simple, perfectly logical, provable and without possibility of a proper retort; since June of 2009 – virtually every combat related death, in Afghanistan, can be laid at the threshold of the current ROE.
There is a general misunderstanding among those who are now ‘awakened’ about what those rules are, when such rules are dictated, by whom they are dictated and why they are as tight as they are at present. What I hope to do in the next few lines is to give you every bit of information you need to fully understand all of this as well as something you can use when you speak to your Congressmen and other ‘servants’ in government.
First you need to approach this with an understanding of just how ignorant nearly every one of our elected ‘servants' are on this subject.
Second, you need to understand that all of them feel they are indemnified, Constitutionally, from any type of penalty for faulty decision-making, willful ignorance, apathy, or half-hearted answers with the specific intent of placating seriously concerned citizens.
Third; you need to be illuminated on the history of Islam, Military protocol, Strategy, the relationship of the three branches of government with the Military and our collective relationship to the world.
Fourth; you will have to understand and more importantly make your ‘servants’ understand that the assessment that was done during the early planning stages of the war, on the enemy and the people of Afghanistan was fatally flawed, historically incorrect and doomed to place our troops in jeopardy from every component of Afghan society until our Marines and Soldiers are literally surrounded by an enemy that is 1400 years old.
Fifth; because of their shared religious heritage and worship of their deity Allah (who IS NOT the God of the Bible) and their desire to fulfill his mandates in the Koran to kill all those who will not take a knee to him, there is virtually no hope of reconciliation.
Sixth; because of our stubborn adherence to COIN and it’s damnable ROE, we have willfully turned over control of the battle field to the enemy.
The fact is, within the first 6 months of our involvement in Afghanistan, we had managed to topple the sitting government, scatter the Taliban like the vermin they are, establish our puppet (Karzai) in Kabul and instill a requisite amount of fear into the people, government, Taliban and neighboring countries of Afghanistan. Over the following years, we lost focus largely due to our involvement in Iraq.
By early 2009, we had re-focused on Afghanistan, but with a different vision and different purpose and therein lies the real problem. The real problem is not the ROE; it is the strategy that bore the ROE and that is Counter Insurgency Doctrine.
Although elements of COIN are readily found in almost every military engagement since the dawn of mankind and war, COIN as a stand-alone doctrine has only been with us since 1940. Since that time it has been tried by other countries and on other battle fields and in all but one instance – failed.
Because of the nature of COIN and the intent of the military force operating within that paradigm, it requires an unusually high degree of restraint when engaging the enemy and most especially around civilians. That is because, the actual intent is to strengthen the resolve of the people and their government to seek out and destroy the insurgency that has beset them. One of the problems in Afghanistan is that the Taliban has been erroneously identified as a foreign ‘insurgency’.
They are in fact an Afghan phenomenon whose ranks are filled largely by Afghans, Pakistanis and some foreign fighters of the same religion and similar philosophy of jurisprudence. The reason that I can say with absolute clarity that the insurgency, while part Pakistani, is a local phenomenon is because the border that separates Afghanistan from Pakistan, effectively splits the largest communal tribe in the region, the Pashtun and they have never recognized it since it’s appearance in 1894.
Because we have already determined (falsely) that the Afghans were illegally infiltrated by the Taliban and that they were not welcome, it was determined that Counter Insurgency Strategy would best serve the needs of Afghanistan and the security interests of the United States by minimizing civilian casualties while ‘encouraging’ the ‘innocent’ Afghan people to take an active role in eradicating the Taliban. This goal, of course, was watered down even further under President Obama who even removed typical military jargon from the lexicon so as not to ‘create ill feeling’.
The ‘formal document’ detailing the level of restraint used on the battle field in which we find the ‘official ROE’, is secret and can only be viewed or discussed by people with the right security clearance. This makes a very convenient argument against hearings when they are demanded by our representatives. This argument, however, is ludicrous because the people who know our ROE the best, is the enemy; the Taliban.
I hope this has given you some indication of where we are at present. It is most frustrating for me to know that this is unlikely to ever be solved because there are very few in Congress – or anywhere in representative government for whom this is a front-and-center issue and given the results of the election; they are right.
The American people didn’t vote the way they did because of a concern for the plight of the military in Afghanistan; they did it for reasons of money and that is where your new crop of elected ‘servants’ will be focused. They can continue to be willfully ignorant while claiming adherence to the will of the people; the people can continue to believe what they have been told, that Islam is a religion of peace and the Pentagon can continue as they have against an enemy falsely assessed.
The President will find a reason to exit Afghanistan long before it becomes an election issue, Iran will have subverted the sovereignty of both Iraq and Afghanistan in less than two years, we will continue to distance ourselves from our only ally in the region, Israel and we, will become an anachronism.
Having said that; let me tell you this: You have listed the Oath on your web site but there is an equally important mandate handed down to each and every one of us who has actually ‘served’; they are the General Orders and the 5th general order is the one I want you to keep as your Holy Oath; “To Quit My Post Only When Properly Relieved’. I don’t know about you; but I am still breathing…"
Semper Fidelis;
John Bernard
