Take the gloves off, or go home.

[eohrnberger]

I don't think leadership is just dropping bombs on Iraqi cities. If anything, that's the easier course. Just bomb the hell out of them, stand on a carrier wearing a cod piece, and claim mission accomplished. Not much leadership in that.

Like George W. Bush led us into 13 years of two failed wars? No thank you. Obama has been hesitant to start another war because Americans are hesitant to start another war. If you have a problem, take it up with the American people.

We lost thousands of soldiers and trillions of dollars over a decade just to lose 2 wars. Now THERE'S a strong neocon leader!

Specific point I was making is that the LBJ administration didn't commit the needed military resources to accomplish victory, very similar to the same approach as the Obama administration now. Back then, LBJ's administration was running the war from DC, micromanaging the hell out of it to a failure, and same appears to be the case here with this administration.

Seems to me that the leadership failing here is doing what it takes to get it done, as well as not meddling in professional soldiers business, and further that this appears to be a common trait in Democratic administrations; prime examples of what appears to be an inherent inability to lead.

The 'Mission Accomplished' I believe that you are referring to is already well debunked as to meaning what you are implying. I'll say no more on that.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

When that pic was taken, it pretty much was accomplished. Then we got stupid.

At that point all we had accomplished was destroying the Iraqi government and plunging Iraq into chaotic anarchy. Countries with no government and abject poverty tend to foster hotbeds of the very terrorism we're trying to stop. We're still seeing blow back from this 13 years later as ISIS rapes and murders its way across the countryside.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Actually it does contain more then just how to treat POW's. https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0365.pdf

Not really. Geneva is primarily about how POWs and non-combatants are treated. It does not regulate how conflicts are to be conducted.

What you are thinking of is the Hague Conventions, which dictate how wars are (and are not) to be conducted.

maybe you should actually read the Geneva convention, I would suggest the first protocol to the Geneva convention articles 35 through 60

That only defines who is classified as a combatant and therefore covered under the requirements of the Hague Convention, and who is a non-combatant.

Funny how often I have this very conversation over and over again. Civilians always seem to think that the Geneva Conventions cover everything, when it is really only a tiny slice of the Laws of Land Warfare.

It is the part that covers civilians, the sick and injured, and POWs. That is all. Primarily the rest are covered by the Hague Conventions.

But there are also others. From League of Nations declarations and of the UN, the Geneva Protocols (which are different then the Conventions), and a great many others.

Trust me, I have been immersed in these rules and laws for over 30 years now.

 

[Paxaeon]

`
The way I see it, America no longer has any moral high ground in which to preach from or defend. As the US has already violated the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners, I don't see why this is even an issue.

 

[iliveonramen]

Specific point I was making is that the LBJ administration didn't commit the needed military resources to accomplish victory, very similar to the same approach as the Obama administration now. Back then, LBJ's administration was running the war from DC, micromanaging the hell out of it to a failure, and same appears to be the case here with this administration.

I'm not sure if I really agree with you, LBJ greatly expanded the war at the request of military personnel. LBJ was a hawk and his popularity plummeted as a result of his massive escalation in the number of ground forces and increased bombing. It wasn't until his last year after lots of protest that he started restricting where we bombed.

Seems to me that the leadership failing here is doing what it takes to get it done, as well as not meddling in professional soldiers business, and further that this appears to be a common trait in Democratic administrations; prime examples of what appears to be an inherent inability to lead.

I don't consider it "meddling". The president is commander and chief for a reason. The US has a system where civilians out rank the military for a reason.

 

[Renae]

Not really. Geneva is primarily about how POWs and non-combatants are treated. It does not regulate how conflicts are to be conducted.

What you are thinking of is the Hague Conventions, which dictate how wars are (and are not) to be conducted.



That only defines who is classified as a combatant and therefore covered under the requirements of the Hague Convention, and who is a non-combatant.

Funny how often I have this very conversation over and over again. Civilians always seem to think that the Geneva Conventions cover everything, when it is really only a tiny slice of the Laws of Land Warfare.

It is the part that covers civilians, the sick and injured, and POWs. That is all. Primarily the rest are covered by the Hague Conventions.

But there are also others. From League of Nations declarations and of the UN, the Geneva Protocols (which are different then the Conventions), and a great many others.

Trust me, I have been immersed in these rules and laws for over 30 years now.

Good call, my mistake, I admit that I had the two mixed up. I haven't had to worry about them professionally for a while now. /bow

 

[Renae]

`
The way I see it, America no longer has any moral high ground in which to preach from or defend. As the US has already violated the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners, I don't see why this is even an issue.

That's cause you don't know what torture IS.

 

[Renae]

I'm not sure if I really agree with you, LBJ greatly expanded the war at the request of military personnel. LBJ was a hawk and his popularity plummeted as a result of his massive escalation in the number of ground forces and increased bombing. It wasn't until his last year after lots of protest that he started restricting where we bombed.



I don't consider it "meddling". The president is commander and chief for a reason. The US has a system where civilians out rank the military for a reason.

LBJ's conduct of the war, was deplorable. We didn't fight to win. That's why we lost. That and idiots on TV. Tet Offensive; Military victory, morale defeat. Thanks Cronkite you ass.

 

[iliveonramen]

LBJ's conduct of the war, was deplorable. We didn't fight to win. That's why we lost. That and idiots on TV. Tet Offensive; Military victory, morale defeat. Thanks Cronkite you ass.

I really don't know too much about the Vietnam war. It was decades before I was born and I haven't read that many books on it. What I've read though did indicate that escalation of the war increased GREATLY under LBJ.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Good call, my mistake, I admit that I had the two mixed up. I haven't had to worry about them professionally for a while now. /bow

No problem, and it is very common.

As a former grunt, we had them pounded into us on a regular basis. And in the modern military it is so ROE obsessed that it is pounded into us even more often.

Don't use LAW rockets against people, don't use the M2 against people, you can use White Phosphorous to destroy material about to be captured or to screen a movement but not in a bunker or against soldiers. Use can use a shotgun to blast open a doorknob but not against somebody inside the house. Things like that we get schooled on all the time, and it is primarily in the Hague Conventions.

I do understand making mistakes, we all do that from time to time and not a big deal. I thought I made a mistake once.

But I was mistaken.

 

[joko104]

Vietnam was fought as a defensive war, and fighting on defense for which the enemy has a safe homebase will be a war that lasts forever.

 

[Removable Mind]

The definition of war changed in 1965.

American involvement in Vietnam was at its peak from 1965 to 1969 when a maximum of 500,000 American troops were in Vietnam. A number of the front line troops were conscripts and not professional troops. They were young, usually from lower social groups and frequently from America's minority groups. American soliders were trained in conventional warfare whereas the Viet Cong used guerilla tactics - hitting the enemy and then moving away; not wearing a standard uniform; merging into village life with ease etc. It was difficult for these young American troops to know who was the enemy and who they could trust amongst the South Vietnamese population.

The Viet Cong had had years to perfect their tactics whereas the American soldiers in Vietnam had only had their basic training. The Viet Cong used no tanks and frequently moved by foot. US troops responded with the use of helicopter gun ships and they tended to treat all civilians alike as potential enemy. Innocent civilians were killed by both sides. The Viet Cong killed those villagers they believed were helping the Americans while US troops killed those who they believed were helping the Viet Cong. The most infamous case of the latter was the Pinksville Massacre - better known as the My Lai massacre. The village of My Lai was considered friendly by US troops but 109 civilians were murdered here as the US troops investigating the village believed that they were conspiring with the Viet Cong.

America and Vietnam (1965-1973)

ISIS is almost a repeat of war tactics engaged in by the Viet Cong. ISIS didn't happen overnight. For over 20 years they methodically planned to be financially capable of accruing logistics and manpower necessary to implement and carry out their assaults in the region for the long-haul. Leaders in ISIS has been planning their entrance into the Middle East chaos with the intent to be seen as a force to be reckoned with.

Upon making their presence known, ISIS immediately invited the world powers to acknowledge their existence by engaging in heinous acts of brutality and cruel, heartless destruction of every one and thing who got in their path.

They are now upping the ante. They are begging for world powers to respond.

The question is - why are ISIS leaders (of a relatively small army) who are displaying Hitler/Stalin/Abubakar Shekau type behaviors -- being so aggressive in pushing the buttons of every super power on the planet? The answer isn't going to wind up being "because their stupid".

 

[Paxaeon]

That's cause you don't know what torture IS.

`
I can honestly say, I have no experience torturing nor have I ever been stuck in a room with Teapartiers, so I have no experienced being tortured. To that extent, I guess you're correct.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The question is - why are ISIS leaders (of a relatively small army) who are displaying Hitler/Stalin/Abubakar Shekau type behaviors -- being so aggressive in pushing the buttons of every super power on the planet? The answer isn't going to wind up being "because their stupid".

Because they are primarily fanatics.

It can be Mein Kampf, it can be the Communist Manifesto, or the Talmud or King James Bible or the Koran. It may be the belief in a future race war where all whites are killed and the few remaining whites will emerge from caves and then rule the world. It may even be the fanatical religion that combines parts of Christianity and the writings of Isaac Asimov. What it is does not matter, fanatics believe that their faith in whatever it is they believe entitles them to do anything.

It is their "right" to commit atrocities, because they are already forgiven by God/Jesus/Allah/Gia/Society that they did the right thing to bring about the "perfect world". And that no matter how bad things look, they are doing it for the "greater good".

 

[eohrnberger]

I'm not sure if I really agree with you, LBJ greatly expanded the war at the request of military personnel. LBJ was a hawk and his popularity plummeted as a result of his massive escalation in the number of ground forces and increased bombing. It wasn't until his last year after lots of protest that he started restricting where we bombed.

I suppose that could be argued either way, and I'll grant you that, fair enough.

I don't consider it "meddling". The president is commander and chief for a reason. The US has a system where civilians out rank the military for a reason.

Yes, in certain circumstances, the military should, and does, need to submit to the will of the civilian government. As it should be. I was not advocating anything counter to this. Seems you imagined that I was, but whatever.

However, Yes. Meddling (abuse of the civilian government / military relationship).

Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, said Washington Post editor Bob Woodward was "correct" when he told "Fox News Sunday" that "people from the White House are micromanaging the tactical situation [against ISIS] on a daily and weekly basis."

Rice had "no statutory authority to give the secretary of defense or any of the general officers or the leadership of the military advice or directives," Boykin said, adding

"There are many who are now saying that [Jarrett] is really the architect of this non-treaty with the Iranians, which ultimately will result in the Iranians having a nuclear program, and America having to accept a nuclear-armed Iran. Yeah, she's a powerful influence on [Obama]," he said.​

Officials in the Pentagon should "push back on the president" against the involvement of White House officials in the specifics of military activities, Boykin said.

"They should complain. When the national security adviser is picking up the phone and calling field commanders, as this one is reported to be doing, then the professional leadership in our military should be balking and pushing back," he said.​

Lt. Gen. Boykin: Rice, Jarrett Calling Shots on ISIS, Iran Deal

Since when does it make any sense from a leadership perspective much less a common sense perspective to have WH staff calling into the field and dictate decisions? Jarret calling into the field with dictates makes as much sense as the WH calling the shots as to what time of day to bomb which targets (as was done during the LBJ administration - more often than not during in theater daylight hours to great loss of aircraft and aircrews - tells you how stupid that is, eh?)

"The commander in the field is always right and the rear echelon is wrong, unless proved otherwise."

General Colin Powell
Chairman (Ret), Joint Chiefs of Staff
A Leadership Primer

The civilian government's leaders need to know enough about leadership and common sense as to when it's constructive to intercede and when it's destructive to do so. It would appear that Democratic administrations are rather confused about the difference between these two situations and identifying them as such, given their propensity to needlessly and destructively micromanage the military.

 

[Crovax]

Not really. Geneva is primarily about how POWs and non-combatants are treated. It does not regulate how conflicts are to be conducted.

What you are thinking of is the Hague Conventions, which dictate how wars are (and are not) to be conducted.



That only defines who is classified as a combatant and therefore covered under the requirements of the Hague Convention, and who is a non-combatant.

Funny how often I have this very conversation over and over again. Civilians always seem to think that the Geneva Conventions cover everything, when it is really only a tiny slice of the Laws of Land Warfare.

It is the part that covers civilians, the sick and injured, and POWs. That is all. Primarily the rest are covered by the Hague Conventions.

But there are also others. From League of Nations declarations and of the UN, the Geneva Protocols (which are different then the Conventions), and a great many others.

Trust me, I have been immersed in these rules and laws for over 30 years now.

30 years wasted then

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Basic rules

Article 35*[ Link ]*-- Basic rules

1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl...t&documentId=0DF4B935977689E8C12563CD0051DAE4

 

[Oozlefinch]

30 years wasted then

And does the Geneva Convention determine what is lawful or unlawful?

No, it does not. That is dictated in the Hague Conventions.

What you are referring to is really nothing more then "This is wrong, look here to see why".

Oh, and by the way, from your own reference:

Part III and several chapters of Part IV (Articles 35-60) deal with the conduct of hostilities, i.e. questions which hitherto were regulated by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and by customary international law.

https://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/470

 

[Renae]

`
I can honestly say, I have no experience torturing nor have I ever been stuck in a room with Teapartiers, so I have no experienced being tortured. To that extent, I guess you're correct.

I'd rather be in a room with teapartiers then OWS, at least I won't have to worry about rape, drugs or crime and they'll clean up when they leave

 

[Renae]

I really don't know too much about the Vietnam war. It was decades before I was born and I haven't read that many books on it. What I've read though did indicate that escalation of the war increased GREATLY under LBJ.

It IS true. The problem was we didn't fight it on the ground, we fought it out of Washington, we restricted our campaigns both ground and air war... sound familiar?

 

[Renae]

No problem, and it is very common.

As a former grunt, we had them pounded into us on a regular basis. And in the modern military it is so ROE obsessed that it is pounded into us even more often.

Don't use LAW rockets against people, don't use the M2 against people, you can use White Phosphorous to destroy material about to be captured or to screen a movement but not in a bunker or against soldiers. Use can use a shotgun to blast open a doorknob but not against somebody inside the house. Things like that we get schooled on all the time, and it is primarily in the Hague Conventions.

I do understand making mistakes, we all do that from time to time and not a big deal. I thought I made a mistake once.

But I was mistaken.

Before we landed in Kosovo, I had to sit through a refer on it, since I was landing with some jar heads The basic gist for me was "You won't be armed, we're not expecting problems but just in case..."

Then we got shot at on approach to the LZ which went hot and the gunny handed me a 16 as we landed, and asked "You know how to use this?"
"I do Gunny"

"Good, don't. Unless everyone else is shooting first."

 

[Removable Mind]

Because they are primarily fanatics.

It can be Mein Kampf, it can be the Communist Manifesto, or the Talmud or King James Bible or the Koran. It may be the belief in a future race war where all whites are killed and the few remaining whites will emerge from caves and then rule the world. It may even be the fanatical religion that combines parts of Christianity and the writings of Isaac Asimov. What it is does not matter, fanatics believe that their faith in whatever it is they believe entitles them to do anything.

It is their "right" to commit atrocities, because they are already forgiven by God/Jesus/Allah/Gia/Society that they did the right thing to bring about the "perfect world". And that no matter how bad things look, they are doing it for the "greater good".

That makes for a great rote reply, but these folks are way more complicated and organized than has been organizations like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, or the like.

ISIS ideology is a great gimmick for attracting radicals, criminals, etc who are just ignorant enough to be sucked into the hype. There's gotta be something way more profound to their agenda than the media hype claim that their duty is fulfill god's will by making the world know that they are god's choice to be REAL boss of the Muslims/Islamic nations... or they are gonna settle who the real caliph/caliphate will be or is.

The leaders of ISIS are telling super powers to **** off. That's not religion or stupidity/ignorance talking. They're smart psychopaths with a lot of money and have take a lot of years to study the shortcomings and mistakes made by other terrorist organizations.

Ordinary psychopaths are dangerous. They’re violent, cruel, and sinister. But when you add the ability to be very calculated, take years of planning, pull together resources for a long-term engagement of taking on super powers - THIS IS POLITICAL.

 

[Crovax]

And does the Geneva Convention determine what is lawful or unlawful?

No, it does not. That is dictated in the Hague Conventions.

What you are referring to is really nothing more then "This is wrong, look here to see why".

Oh, and by the way, from your own reference: Part III and several chapters of Part IV (Articles 35-60) deal with the conduct of hostilities, i.e. questions which hitherto were regulated by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and by customary international law."


https://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/470

Maybe you need a dictionary also

hith·er·to
ˌhiT͟Hərˈto͞o
adverb
until now or until the point in time under discussion.

"there is a need to replace what has hitherto been a haphazard method of payment"

synonyms: previously, formerly, earlier, before, beforehand

Once the first protocol to the geneva convention came into being the hauge convention became obsolete

 

[apdst]

The Geneva Convention doesn't govern how we fight - it governs how we treat those who are rendered incapable/unable to fight.

Prisoners of war, civilians, and other soldiers who fall into this classification.

ISIS murders their captives, raids villages, burns people alive, and crucifies children. They are the ones who are violating the convention.
By waging war, air strikes, and land invasion - etc - we are not.

The Geneva Convention isn't holding us back.

Technically, that's not accurate. The GC governs which weapons are used and how they're employed.

 

[Moot]

LOL Only liberals think war has rules. War has a single commandment--kill or be killed.

The dead and wounded "friendlies" might disagree.

 

[Moot]

The real problem with the war on ISIS and other terror groups is that we're hamstrung, hamstrung by rules of war that are only followed by one side. I say **** the Geneva convention on the rules of war......

.

ISIS is fighting a war as it's spelled out in the Koran...ie: beheadings, crucifixions, slavery, etc.. So it's not like there are 'no rules' for ISIS...it's just that their rules date back to the 7th century and ours date from the 20th.

Yet you seem to be suggesting that the US should revert back to the 7th century as well...so that we're all playing by the same rules.

Just because ISIS believes the end times and Armageddon is upon us, doesn't mean that you have to believe it, too.