Rules of Engagement

[tw]

From Vanity Fair of Nov 2006:

Rules of Engagement
Once it was issued, it became an official truth that the Marine Corps, even today, has rigidly refused to retract, despite the fact that within the Corps a more plausible official truth existed almost from the start: the day after the press statement was issued, McConnell visited the battalion headquarters ... where he gave his commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Chessani, a PowerPoint briefing on the action, explaining that some number of civilians had been killed by Wuterich's squad while they suppressed a "complex ambush" that had started with the explosion of the land mine and had continued with an attack by hidden gunmen. ... Chessani authorized the maximum compensation payments of $2,500 to the families for each of the dead who could be certified not to have been insurgents. A Marine major was assigned to do at least that much of an investigation. McConnell's version was passed up the chain of command.

Today, we know this was a massacre of Iraqis including a 76 year old blind and decrepit man in a wheelchair, his elderly wife, and children ranged in age from 15 to 3. This was all unquestioned for a month until Time Magazine's Tim McGirk reviewed pictures and saw obvious discrepancies. Four months later, Time Magazine would publish facts that eventually revealed the 2005 massacre. What happened next?

From one Marine officer close to the case:

"The Corps has this reflex when it feels threatened at home. It has a history of eating its young."

Page 312 of Vanity Fair, November 2006, published 23 pages entitled Rules of Engagement .

David Halberstam wrote "Making of a Quagmire" that predicted in 1965 what would happen to Americans in 1968 and 1972 Vietnam. Thomas Ricks wrote "Fiasco" that describes the 82nd Airborne in Fallujah. Vanity Fair provides an abridged version.

Obviously, the Marines were not allowed to kill wounded prisoners, but in a televised case one of them did, and Marine Corps justice averted its gaze. ... Within more contemplative circles of Marines, the battle of Fallujah became less of a triumph than a warning.

Officials in the Green Zone highlighted the slightest positive signs. But on the ground in Anbar the trends were all wrong.

The incident re-emerged only because of the insistent inquiries of Time magazine. During the subsequent military investigations that were forced onto the Marine Corps in the spring and summer of 2006, grainy images from an aerial drone were found that appeared to show the five bodies lying clustered together beside the sedan, with one sprawled partly atop another.

Don't for one minute deny reality. This is what happens when war is justified by lies - be it Vietnam or Iraq. And look who then suffers more - the grunt and his charges. He did not ask for this. We forced it upon him. And so we put him in an unwinnable position.

Similar story to this Vanity Fair story is told in another thread entitled "I do not let people die on me."

[lumberjim]

pah. i thought you were proposing to brianna. bummer.

[Shawnee123]

dammit jim, you beat me to it...see my post in relationships.

[tw]

Remember: we put them there. You better damn well understand what they are dealing with. Remember why Urbane Guerrilla posts so much disrepect for the troops. Appreciate why that Vanity Fair article is so relevant.

New York Times demonstrates what should be common knowledge to every American who put them there. From Second Battalion 8th Marines, a video posted 4 Nov 2006:
The Sniper

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

This is what happens when war is justified by lies - be it Vietnam or Iraq. And look who then suffers more - the grunt and his charges. He did not ask for this. We forced it upon him. And so we put him in an unwinnable position.

This happens in war..... all wars.
It doesn't make a bit of difference whether the war happens to be justified or not....... other than when it's unjustified it didn't have to happen at all.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

This happens in war..... all wars.
It doesn't make a bit of difference whether the war happens to be justified or not.......

In wars fought with a specific objective, with smoking gun justification, and with an exit strategy; then a militarily superior force controls the terrain. Those troops control nothing but ground beneath their feet. Literally anybody being 'protected' is a potential enemy. Those troops are only targets. Just like in Vietnam, they are only reacting to events. They don't control events. It is a no win situation.

Notice how much a target. The enemy could not only choose his terrain as recommended by Sze Tzu. The enemy had complete liberty to wait – let the first patrol pass and take out the radio man. Deja vue Nam. He even had plenty of time to select weakness in body armor. Americans are seeing this with increased frequency.

Appreciate, for example, what those Marines did to protect their downed buddy. But notice what happened to Iraqis attached to that squad.

As if above points were not enough, notice no effort to find the sniper. The ‘enemy’ completely controls the terrain. From Military Science 101, the enemy is winning.

If the American military was 'winning', sufficient troops would have been deployed on both banks of the canal. Americans are nothing more than targets. Reactive rather than proactive. This happened when troops were deployed on lies and denials at the highest levels. This is not what happens in all wars. This happened to troops who were not winning. We have met the enemy – and they are the people we were liberating? That video is damning about how bad things are for Americans. At no time did the superior force control events. That was how and why defeat happened in Nam when top management was also lying.

Apparently many did not appreciate a larger perspective in that story – a classic example of how superior military forces are defeated. When direction at the highest level is flawed (no smoking gun, no strategic objective, no exit strategy), then this is how troops end up in this no win situation. They don't control the terrain. They are not proactive. It results in MyLai, Haditha, and Fallujah. These do not occur in all wars. These symptoms occur when wars are being lost at highest levels.

[xoxoxoBruce]

So you're telling me if we had a million troops in Iraq and the war was being run by the Pentagon instead of the White House, the situation would be the same.....just because it's an unjustified war?

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

So you're telling me if we had a million troops in Iraq and the war was being run by the Pentagon instead of the White House, the situation would be the same.....just because it's an unjustified war?

If we had a million troops in Iraq, we would also have had a strategic objective. We had no objectives as was so obvious four years ago that I posted it repeatedly. Most important in this post is a hyperlink to PBS’s Frontline discussed below.

(No, again there is no ‘horn tooting’. This statement again confronts many Cellar dwellers with an obvious question – why did you not see this coming when posted three and four years ago?)

We did not have enough troops to accomplish anything significant. We operated passively (as Tobias demonstrated in his Iraq experience) or reactively because of decisions by George Jr (Cheney) and by Bremmer. We did no useful reconstruction while enriching Haliburton, et al. We let Iraq deteriorated starting with looting that was predicted and that was intentionally ignored in the White House. We ignored the few troops who knew how to accomplish such objectives (ie commander of the 101st Airborne). Instead we filled the CPA with hack political extremists who had no idea how to accomplish civil reconstruction but could answer questions about abortion and birth control correctly.

Note tenses. We did not have a million men because our leaders had a political agenda rather than work for America. The troops were simply more fodder for a George Jr (Cheney) agenda. "Mission Accomplished" that should have been fought by 'planning for the peace' and by reconstruction, instead, only created an insurgency. There is no way around that reality. The insurgency was created by American incompetence in direct violation of Military Science 101. What is worse? Every Cellar dweller was warned of these consequences three and four years ago.

Same reasons why those troops in The Sniper operate only reactively. Same reason why those troops do not control the terrain. Directly traceable to why we had too few troops in 2003 AND why the insurgency was created by George Jr's agenda. Directly traceable to mental midgets who had solutions defined by Colin Powell but ignored Powell; declared themselves smarter only because they were conservatives.

Defined are people who created a militarily unwinnable fiasco (quagmire) in The Sniper . Defined by that video is what happens when top management - the mental midget administration - do not and did not support the troops.

Anyone who does not understand this should visit Frontline's The Lost Year that begins with 9 April 2003. Those outside America are strongly encouraged to view what so many Americans repeatedly denied. And still deny because so many Americans still believe Rush Limbaugh propaganda. Frontline's The Lost Year demonstrates exactly why FDR and Churchill planned for the peace in 1942 – and therefore why WWII was a victory. This Public Broadcasting System (PBS) news report is damning, in part, because so much of it was being predicted here in the Cellar four years ago. So damning because so many Cellar dwellers had every opportunity to see it coming in 2003 and 2004. This Frontline episode is as important as previous Frontlines that exposed Project for New American Century and a George Jr agenda called 'preemption'.

That NY Times video The Sniper simply makes it obvious how unwinnable "Mission Accomplished" has been. Video demonstrates how little this administration has supported the troops for reasons political.

A November 2006 article in Vanity Fair page 312 entitled Rules of Engagement demonstrate what happens when an American government does not support the troops. Abu Ghraid was but a warning of this administration’s political agenda. Bin Laden runs free because of that same political agenda.

A question asked maybe one hundred times and I still don't have an answer - when are we going after bin Laden? The Sniper implies that answer.

[CaliforniaMama]

Originally Posted by tw

We ignored the few troops who knew how to accomplish such objectives (ie commander of the 101st Airborne). Instead we filled the CPA with hack political extremists who had no idea how to accomplish civil reconstruction but could answer questions about abortion and birth control correctly.

From what I've heard discussed around here, it is the pressure of the people that has forced the Administration to react in this way. It seems like if it hadn't been for such rampant opposition by the people to any action, Bush would have been more willing to listen to Powell, or at least would have been pushed less hard by the Party to do what is effective militarily as opposed to politically.

But, hey, I'm not an expert, just a listener and I live in a die hard liberal area, so it's hard to hear anything that is not propaganda.

[tw]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaMama

But, hey, I'm not an expert, just a listener and I live in a die hard liberal area, so it's hard to hear anything that is not propaganda.

You live in a region where people more often ask embarrassing questions. Demanding embarrassing answers such as 'reasons why' is too often confused with liberalism.

Your response states one fact - woefully obvious. You completely ignored that Frontline report The Lost Year . However having learned from history (2003 to 2004), then show me where popular pressure ever once influenced incompetent decision after politically inspired decision? Show me one fact that explains why Powell's doctrine was even considered by those without basic military knowledge and with too much power? Show me one example of public pressure causing violations of basic military doctrine?

Embarrassing is:

it is the pressure of the people that has forced the Administration to react in this way

since that is what Rush Limbaugh on oxycotton would say to deflect blame. Wild and speculative claims without a single supporting fact. Classic Limbaugh propaganda complete with statements obvious in contradiction to history and classic of a political agenda.

Embarrassing: a mental midget president made mistakes only because the public pressured him to make those mistakes? Embarrassing: not one example of that pressure. But plenty of Limbaugh half truth spin. Where is the part where god told him to make those mistakes?

Meanwhile history - why troops are forced to fight an unwinnable war - is reviewed in Frontline:The Lost Year . Embarrassing: you so hate American troops as to not even review history in that Frontline report.

[xoxoxoBruce]

tw, have you ever seen a Frontline show called The lost Year?

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

tw, have you ever seen a Frontline show called The lost Year?

Wasn't that a tale of someone trapped in a box called The Cellar for a year? He kept looking for a door, kept finding passages blocked by spinning fans, and did not realize he was virtual. Or was that called Tron? It was so long ago, I think I lost that year. I'll wait for the report from Frontline.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's the one.