Unnecessary Loss of Life: The deadly price of politically correct rules of engagement

crew-22312In conducting war using rules of engagement from the Geneva Conventions is complete and utter folly.

Where in said rules does it call for maiming, slitting the throats of infidels, and hanging homosexuals.

Following said rules would be akin to bringing on suicide.

Commanders in the field following such rules would have been fragged.

M-67Grenade

The term fragging was coined by military personnel of the United States during the Vietnam War.

Fragging is the assassination or attempted assassination by a soldier of a fellow soldier, usually a superior officer or non-commissioned officer.

Initially, the killings were most often attempted with a fragmentation grenade, sometimes making it seem as though the killing was accidental or during combat with the enemy.

War is nasty, brutal and costly. In our latest wars, many of the casualties suffered by American troops are a direct result of their having to obey rules of engagement created by politicians who have never set foot on,or even seen, a battlefield.

Today’s battlefield commanders must be alert to the media and do-gooders who are all too ready to demonize troops involved in a battle that produces non combatant deaths, so-called collateral damage.

afghanistan_-_american_soldiers_fob_baylough

According to a Western Journalism article by Leigh H Bravo, “Insanity: The Rules of Engagement” our troops fighting in Afghanistan cannot do night or surprise searches. Also, villagers must be warned prior to searches.

Troops may not fire at the enemy unless fired upon. U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present. And only women can search women.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said: “We handcuffed our troops in combat needlessly.

“This was very harmful to our men and has never been done in U.S combat operations that I know of.”

Collateral damage and the unintentional killing of civilians are a consequence of war. But the question we should ask is: Are our troops’ lives less important than the inevitable collateral damage?

The unnecessary loss of life and casualties that result from politically correct rules of engagement are about to be magnified in future conflicts by mindless efforts to put women in combat units.

In 2013, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta officially lifted the ban on women serving in ground combat roles.

On Jan. 1, 2016, all branches of the military must either open all positions to women or request exceptions. That boils down to having women serve in combat roles, because any commander requesting exceptions would risk having his career terminated in the wake of the screeching and accusations of sexism that would surely ensue.

The U.S. Army has announced that for the first time, two female officers graduated from the exceptionally tough three-phase Ranger course.

Their “success” will serve as grist for the mills of those who argue for women in combat.

Unlike most of their fellow soldiers, these two women had to recycle because they had failed certain phases of the course.

 

A recent Marine Corps force integration study concluded that combat teams were less effective when they included women.

Overall, the report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 93 out of 134 tasks evaluated.

All-male teams were universally faster “in each tactical movement.” The report also says that female Marines had higher rates of injury throughout the experiment.

Should anyone be surprised by the findings of male combat superiority?

Young men are overloaded with testosterone, which produces hostility, aggression and competitiveness.

Such a physical characteristic produces sometimes-poor behavior in civilian society, occasionally leading to imprisonment, but the same characteristics are ideal for ground combat situations.

You may bet the rent money that the current effort to integrate combat jobs will not end with simply a few extraordinary women.

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus told the Navy Times that once women start attending SEAL training, it would make sense to examine the standards.

He said, “First we’re going to make sure there are standards” and “they’re gender-neutral.”

Only after that will the Navy make sure the standards “have something to do with the job.” We’ve heard that before in matters of race. It’s called disparate impact. That is, if the Navy SEALs cannot prove that staying up for 18 hours with no rest or sleep, sitting and shivering in the cold Pacific Ocean, running with a huge log on your shoulder, and being spoken to like a dog are necessary, then those parts of SEAL training will be eliminated so that women can pass.

The most disgusting, perhaps traitorous, aspect of all this is the overall timidity of military commanders, most of whom, despite knowing better, will only publicly criticize the idea of putting women in combat after they retire from service.

About the author: Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Dr. Walter E. Williams holds a B.A. in economics from California State University, Los Angeles, and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in economics from UCLA. He also holds a Doctor of Humane Letters from Virginia Union University and Grove City College, Doctor of Laws from Washington and Jefferson College and Doctor Honoris Causa en Ciencias Sociales from Universidad Francisco Marroquin, in Guatemala, where he is also Professor Honorario.

Dr. Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, since 1980; from 1995 to 2001, he served as department chairman. He has also served on the faculties of Los Angeles City College, California State University Los Angeles, and Temple University in Philadelphia, and Grove City College, Grove City, Pa.

Dr. Williams is the author of over 150 publications which have appeared in scholarly journals such as Economic Inquiry, American Economic Review, Georgia Law Review, Journal of Labor Economics, Social Science Quarterly, and Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy and popular publications such as Newsweek, Ideas on Liberty, National Review, Reader’s Digest, Cato Journal, and Policy Review. He has authored ten books: America: A Minority Viewpoint, The State Against Blacks, which was later made into the PBS documentary “Good Intentions,” All It Takes Is Guts, South Africa’s War Against Capitalism, which was later revised for South African publication, Do the Right Thing: The People’s Economist Speaks, More Liberty Means Less Government, Liberty vs. the Tyranny of Socialism, Up From The Projects: An Autobiography, Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed On Discrimination? and American Contempt for Liberty.

He has made scores of radio and television appearances which include “Nightline,” “Firing Line,” “Face the Nation,” Milton Friedman’s “Free To Choose,” “Crossfire,” “MacNeil/Lehrer,” “Wall Street Week” and was a regular commentator for “Nightly Business Report.” He is also occasional substitute host for the “Rush Limbaugh” show. In addition Dr. Williams writes a nationally syndicated weekly column that is carried by approximately 140 newspapers and several web sites. His most recent documentary is “Suffer No Fools,” shown on PBS stations Fall/Spring 2014/2015, based on Up from the Projects: An Autobiography.

Dr. Williams serves as Emeritus Trustee at Grove City College and the Reason Foundation. He serves as Director for the Chase Foundation. He also serves on numerous advisory boards including: Cato Institute, Landmark Legal Foundation, Institute of Economic Affairs, and Heritage Foundation.

About JCscuba

I am firmly devoted to bringing you the truth and the stories that the mainstream media ignores. Together we can restore our constitutional republic to what the founding fathers envisioned and fight back against the progressive movement. Obama nearly destroyed our country economically, militarily coupled with his racism he set us further on the march to becoming a Socialist State. Now it's up to President Trump to restore America to prominence. Republicans who refuse to go along with most of his agenda RINOs must be forced to walk the plank, they are RINOs and little else.
This entry was posted in Unnecessary Loss of Life: The deadly price of politically correct rules of engagement and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Unnecessary Loss of Life: The deadly price of politically correct rules of engagement

  1. Dave the Differentiator says:

    I have been critical of the Rules of Engagement for many years. The Obama administration is corrupt and Muslim.

    The head of the CIA is a devout Muslim according to him.

    The problem is the Commander-in-Chief and he needs to be changed – IMPEACHED!

    Liked by 2 people

    • JCscuba says:

      Good call Dave, I forgot about the squirrel heading up the CIA. Could this administration be anymore infiltrated or corrupt? They likely radio in the time of bombing or drone strikes so the rag heads can run for cover.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. AND drawn and quartered with his head displayed on a pike- – the way our ancestors would have done it 500 years ago.

    Like

  3. JCscuba says:

    There are more heads than one belonging on a spike my friend.

    Like

  4. Pingback: Unnecessary Loss of Life: The deadly price of politically correct rules of engagement | partneringwitheagles

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.