Quote:
Originally Posted by Shimpy
I said the Muslims are worse than the Nazis not only because of that but because they don't wear uniforms or can be identified unless caught in the act. A terrorist can be a civilian one moment, duck into a building, come out with an AK47 and mow down several soldiers then duck into the building, ditch the AK47 and then come out and walk amoung the people. They'll walk behind women and children and come out shooting, not caring if the women or children are killed. They know we are very concerned about civilian casualities and play that to their advantage, hiding in hospitals and schools.
In the last 5 months I've read 5 books by combat veterans (Delta Force and Navy Seals) who had to fight those people. Each one mentioned our ROE (rules of engagement) has hindered us to the point that many are afraid of the lawyers they would have to face.
This I believe is the worse enemy we have ever faced and we better start treating it seriously. They have no fear of death and in fact welcome it.
|
Shrimpy … you raise two interesting points.
1. I don’t think you intended to mention this aspect, but most people don’t realize that the Nazis and certain radical Islamic groups actually have very close ties that go back to the 1930s. The Muslim Brotherhood’s founder Hassan al-Banna was a great admirer of Adolph Hitler. After he rose to power in the 1930s, Hitler provided the MB financial and other support. The Waffen SS had Muslim volunteers who fought for the Nazis. Saddam’s Baath Party had ties going back to the Nazi’s as well. The unifying factor there, in addition to anti-Semitism, was hatred of the British.
2. Regarding the ROE, I think that will be a problem unless they are significantly loosened to let our guys win. To be blunt, we need to kill the ISIS enemy and kill them quickly, efficiently and ideally en masse. By the way, if anyone disagrees with that assertion, I’d like to hear them make their case.
3. The ROE has its origins in more of a ‘gentlemanly’ type warfare (not literally of course) where the Geneva Convention, Laws of War and so forth prevail. Ask yourself however that will work with ISIS jihadists? Probably not very well. I remember after 9/11, when the US was targeting the bad guys in Afghanistan, I was dismayed to learn than General Franks (C/CENTCOM) actually had a lawyer in the decisions loop about what targets could be hit and not. That makes your point actually about how military and intel people have to cover their rear ends instead of fighting flat out to win. Some rules and guidelines are needed of course, but to my way of thinking, when you need to have lawyers involved like this, it’s idiotic. Again, in my view, after enough domestic (i.e. civilian) American casualties accrue, we will change the rules but probably not before that happens.
4. Your should also read “Company Man” by John Rizzo. It's a very interesting book. Rizzo is actually a very patriotic guy so no criticism of him is intended but the fact that everything of significance had to be run thru the CIA lawyers is dismaying.