Posted on Sep 15, 2022
What should we be teaching our soldiers about the conduct of war?
4.86K
24
6
7
7
0
Chief Eddie Gallagher and Major Ian Fishback present two very different schools of thought on the conduct of war, particularly at the operational level. What do you feel we need to teach our new soldiers about these two approaches?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Fishback
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gallagher_(Navy_SEAL)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Fishback
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gallagher_(Navy_SEAL)
Leadership
Justice
Leadership Development
11B: Infantryman
Democracy
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 2
3
3
0
One should never give up his or her honor in order to prosecute war. Defeating the bad guy by becoming even worse is no path to honor, glory, or even long-term success. Eventually, the chickens come home to roost.
On the other hand, while maintaining virtue is important, there is such a thing as being too virtuous. War is Hell. Any pretense that it is not is delusion. When engaged in combat, kill quickly, efficiently, and without reservation.
But AFTER the combat, care for the wounded of BOTH sides, treat enemy prisoners humanely, and give what care you are tactically and strategically able to give to the bystanders.
We have to walk the center path. If we make our warriors into social workers, they will not win wars. But if we allow them to turn themselves into murderers (and there is a difference between murders and "good kills") and torturers, they will not win wars, either.
On the other hand, while maintaining virtue is important, there is such a thing as being too virtuous. War is Hell. Any pretense that it is not is delusion. When engaged in combat, kill quickly, efficiently, and without reservation.
But AFTER the combat, care for the wounded of BOTH sides, treat enemy prisoners humanely, and give what care you are tactically and strategically able to give to the bystanders.
We have to walk the center path. If we make our warriors into social workers, they will not win wars. But if we allow them to turn themselves into murderers (and there is a difference between murders and "good kills") and torturers, they will not win wars, either.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
As they are taught, neither of these men is well versed enough in the operational side of war to speak to how the military should train and operate at that level.
The military has laws and rules of conduct, and specifics on how to handle prisoners of war. If a Service member operates outside of the boundaries there actions should be reviewed by the appropriate authorities to determine if their actions were justified based on the situation on the ground at the time it occurred. There is no one answer to any like solution therefore, the rules, standards and laws must be upheld and that is the only answer for institutional training.
I may have missed the mark as the pint is foggy to me.
The military has laws and rules of conduct, and specifics on how to handle prisoners of war. If a Service member operates outside of the boundaries there actions should be reviewed by the appropriate authorities to determine if their actions were justified based on the situation on the ground at the time it occurred. There is no one answer to any like solution therefore, the rules, standards and laws must be upheld and that is the only answer for institutional training.
I may have missed the mark as the pint is foggy to me.
(2)
(0)
SPC John Tacetta
Having served numerous combat tours, it seems to me that both men can speak knowledgably about field operations.
Gallagher was the "tough guy" kicking ass and taking names and only ran into trouble has his travails bled, so to speak, outside his community. The brass, belatedly tried to rein him in, but the highest power lauded him and gave him a pass. Now he's strutting about.
Fishback wrestled with the psychic trauma he felt his men suffered by engaging in acts that he saw as counter to the ideals embodied in the Geneva Convention. He passed in relative obscurity.
Who has more to teach us about the ethics of warfare, if one can ask such a question?
I must have served an IPA.
Gallagher was the "tough guy" kicking ass and taking names and only ran into trouble has his travails bled, so to speak, outside his community. The brass, belatedly tried to rein him in, but the highest power lauded him and gave him a pass. Now he's strutting about.
Fishback wrestled with the psychic trauma he felt his men suffered by engaging in acts that he saw as counter to the ideals embodied in the Geneva Convention. He passed in relative obscurity.
Who has more to teach us about the ethics of warfare, if one can ask such a question?
I must have served an IPA.
(1)
(0)
CSM Darieus ZaGara
my point is tgat you can not develop trainjng and development including operational techniques based on the experiences of an individual or even a small group from the same mindsets. I to served a few days in the Army, I respect and value the contributions of all, I have led and supported conventional, and joint, including multinational service members, as well as Special Forces in sector. They all had various operational playbook, none like the other, and all effective for their specialty’s. We all had one thing in common, the Theatre Commands rules of engagement.
In closing I have a great respect for your service as well. Thank you, SPC John Tacetta
In closing I have a great respect for your service as well. Thank you, SPC John Tacetta
(0)
(0)
CSM Darieus ZaGara
i fully respect your service, I too have been around the the battlefield a bit. My point was not that these men/Warriors do not have value in operational tactics, it is simply a fact that no one man can design operational tactics for the services. They both had operational experience and value to this operations. My experience comes from being the Soldier in the field of operation, up to the Senior Enlisted Leader for many organizations having conventional, joint, and multinational experience.
On the field of battle each organization had standing operational order tgat are inferred by the senior leaders concept of the enemy and how they need to be treated in any environment. It takes a team of experienced strategists to do see t all aspects of the mission at hand to determine the glide path for operations within the scope of the rules of engagement. The Warriors identified certainly have extremely valuable input, but neither can derive tactical responses to any given situation.
I respect these men and the challenges I mourn for any loss of life of any citizen let alone a brother at arms. These men both e soured sone very challenging situations and deserve our full respect where appropriate. Thank you for your very valuable insights. SPC John Tacetta
On the field of battle each organization had standing operational order tgat are inferred by the senior leaders concept of the enemy and how they need to be treated in any environment. It takes a team of experienced strategists to do see t all aspects of the mission at hand to determine the glide path for operations within the scope of the rules of engagement. The Warriors identified certainly have extremely valuable input, but neither can derive tactical responses to any given situation.
I respect these men and the challenges I mourn for any loss of life of any citizen let alone a brother at arms. These men both e soured sone very challenging situations and deserve our full respect where appropriate. Thank you for your very valuable insights. SPC John Tacetta
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google