Why do we fight these wars with one hand behind our backs?

SN Earl Robinson — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:26:19 -0400

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 30 at 2015 9:28 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:28:16 -0400

Because the nation has gone PC, and the Parties are looking for reasons to bring their opponents down with harsh criticisms over any unfortunate incidents. And the media gives critics a megaphone without looking into the truth in the incidents.

Kind of the way the police are under attack today. When it happens to the military we lose wars instead of just having riots that destroy our own property.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Jun 30 at 2015 9:33 AM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:33:47 -0400

Because as a nation we do not believe in "total war" anymore.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jun 30 at 2015 9:57 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:57:11 -0400

Other than defending against threats, our war now is economics.

Response by MSG Floyd Williams made Jun 30 at 2015 9:59 AM

MSG Floyd Williams — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:59:08 -0400

Our military fighting the war on terrorism blindfolded.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Jun 30 at 2015 9:59 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:59:15 -0400

Because we elect dumbasses that don't believe in all out war.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Jun 30 at 2015 10:08 AM

1LT Aaron Barr — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:08:03 -0400

Politics and ignorance, pure and simple. Following the carnage of WWII, more and more restrictions have been placed upon military operations. Even worse, we have a huge swath of the population who don't realize that just as we cannot deliberately target civilians and related sites such as houses, schools, hospitals, worship sites etc. so too can the enemy not use them for military purposes. Doing so turns them into military targets subject to military attack with the moral, ethical and legal responsibility for any civilians killed or property destroyed on the enemy who used them for a military purpose.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 10:18 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:18:40 -0400

Because the people who come up with the plan/rules aren't the people on the battlefield.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 10:20 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:20:27 -0400

SMSGT Thomas...I suppose there is justification to retain some semblance of a moral high ground by striving to limit collateral damage, and to observe accepted rules of war/engagement. Otherwise it can be an immoral turkey shoot. Public opinion also plays a role in reducing our own casualty rates. Might does not make right as you well know. Yet there will always be rules that seem ridiculous due to their interpretation, impracticability, or other unintended effects.

Response by Sgt Billy Alt made Jun 30 at 2015 10:55 AM

Sgt Billy Alt — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:55:30 -0400

We unfortunately have allowed politics to get in the way of our Military.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jun 30 at 2015 11:04 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:04:22 -0400

Unfortunately it tends to take a man-made disaster to unify us to significant degree that the President and Congress will move together against a perceived common enemy. Sinking of the Lusitania, attack on Pearl Harbor, 9/11/2001 attacks galvanized the nation. Total war describes our civil way, WWI and WWII. After we learned the depth and breadth of damage that an atomic bomb could inflict total wars have been generally off the table [since the Cold War].
Many Americans seem to have short attention spans which are linked to news cycles so that day to day priorities shift and it is rare that bedrock issues are stirred to the point that we are willing to take real action.
The establishment of the United Nations and the World Court don't really help us or any other member nations fight wars. Just looking at the accusations against Israel and Hamas over their fighting. The UN does not seem to much better than the League of Nations it replaced.

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Jun 30 at 2015 2:50 PM

CDR Michael Goldschmidt — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:50:36 -0400

It's because if we win, that's the end game. Deficit spending on weapons slows down, the Federal Reserve creates less money out of nothing, lends less of it to finance arms sales, the arms manufacturers suffer, and the government officials get fewer "campaign contributions" to lubricate awarding federal arms contracts. When we prolong war, sure, people die, but those in power ride the gravy train to the end of the line. This has been going on practically forever. For more information, see what two-time Medal of Honor recipient Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, had to say about it at warisaracket.com.

Response by PO2 Robert Hunter made Jun 30 at 2015 2:55 PM

PO2 Robert Hunter — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:55:41 -0400

Because Congress holds the pursestrings, not the Commander-in-Chief.

Response by Sgt Nick Marshall made Jun 30 at 2015 3:35 PM

Sgt Nick Marshall — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:35:23 -0400

Because a: the public is afraid to lose more troops and b: the government is unwilling to spend the $. Though the US arms producers would love it.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 30 at 2015 4:11 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:11:19 -0400

We don't understand their culture and way of thinking. Many of Afghan and Iraqi soldiers will fight harder for their village than the national military. We don't understand that Sunnis and Shia are enemies. The democratic governments are enemies of the people as they discriminated against Shia and Sunni, and they are very corrupt as well.

The insurgents have agility but not us. We approach it with a heavy military and nation building assets. We allow the enemy to operate within the fringes of society hoping that locals on the ground will fight the insurgents. If we want to win the wars, we need to find the insurgents and kill them.

Response by TSgt Rafael Lebron made Jun 30 at 2015 5:21 PM

TSgt Rafael Lebron — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 17:21:53 -0400

The way we are fighting this war is exactly like we fought the Vietnam war, and if we are not careful, we will get the same results.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 30 at 2015 9:18 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:18:12 -0400

I don't understand what you mean by "hands tied behind our backs". The wars we have fought in the pat 14 years have been for the most part counter insurgencies where the opposing forces have beenn insurgents without uniforms and or permanent facilities.

What would you want from the ROE? Attacks on populated areas where you kill non combattants? That just makes more insurgents bent on revenge.

Shall we use more drone strikes? The skies are full of them now. We have used drones effectively to cut down on casualties. We killed Al Awlaki, his son and Gadan with them among others.

We've killed pirates all over Somalia and in the Gulf of Guinea..... We're in X number of countries.

The problem with your question is you don't specify which war in which country....shall we loosen the ROE to shoot anything that moves? Should we use nukes? What exactly would you have us do. The gloves are off and have been.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 30 at 2015 10:09 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:09:08 -0400

War has morphed and changed form, we have asymmetric war, hybrid war ( Russian motorcycle gangs in Crimea) Cyber war, insurgencies, piracy, international criminal cartels.

The kind of WWII conventional warfare that I trained for in the Cold War is gone forever(sadly) there will be no standing toe to toe in the Fulda Gap withe the Russians 3d Shock Horde. No high ground to take, just these nasty murky wars.

If your looking for total hands off war, shall we go nuclear? Nope that's not gonna happen either.

So much for hands off.

Response by SSG Robert Blair made Jun 30 at 2015 11:02 PM

SSG Robert Blair — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:02:19 -0400

"Politics". It's really that simple. We did risk our lives for maintaining our way of life whether directly or indirectly. Over the last half of a decade the purpose has changed to, we die for someone else's political career, brownie points or agenda.

Response by PO1 John Elliss made Jul 1 at 2015 7:08 AM

PO1 John Elliss — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:08:25 -0400

Saber rattling. The Politicians have no personal involvement in the conflict. If there is a threat, we send ships, troops, etc. What they do after they get there is another matter.

Response by SMSgt David Zobel made Jul 4 at 2015 9:23 PM

SMSgt David Zobel — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 21:23:03 -0400

Because politics hasn't changed since Vietnam. The current Commander-in-Chief doesn't even have any friends or relatives that served. Politicians care too much about "legacies."

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Apr 1 at 2016 1:17 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Fri, 01 Apr 2016 13:17:35 -0400

Because we're (As military) is too good at our jobs. Consider the statistics, during WWII something like 2/3rds of the Russian population died 20 million... EVERYONE in Russia is related to someone who died in war just a generation or two ago.

We watched the towers fall on 9/11, and it horrified us, but for most of us it really wasn't personal. I know some people who live in NY, and even they weren't related to or know anyone who died on 9/11... just their view of the city changed.

So when we start fighting the war and they see people they actually know getting hurt, and then the press makes a big story out of a little hazing of prisoners they looks their stomach for the realities of war. They forget that Andersonville and Camp Sumpter were realities too, not just Auchwitz.

So in an effort to make war the clean, patriotic, hero movie that they've been led to believe it's SUPPOSED to be instead of the bloody shithole that it actually is, they pressure politicians to stick their nose in where it doesn't belong.