Rules Of Engagement
Oh no. Not Mr. Hooah again! What’s he doing writing here?
OK, OK. The lady of the house had a few other things to do. It’s not easy keeping this household of military madness together. So, you’re stuck with me. Poor souls.
So what’s on my mind? Just a few things. For example, did you know the new Army field manual 3.0 was recently issued? Hailed as a major TRADOC overhaul I have to say that I was sorely disappointed at the onset of my reading.
Why? Let’s start at the beginning. General William Wallace (I love that name) begins his forward to the manual with this …
America is at war, and we live in a world where global terrorism and extremist ideologies are
realities. The Army has analytically looked at the future, and we believe our Nation will
continue to be engaged in an era of “persistent conflict”—a period of protracted
confrontation among states, nonstate, and individual actors increasingly willing to use
violence to achieve their political and ideological ends.
Set aside for now that most of America has no idea that we’re at war and look instead at another issue. Let “global terrorism” and “extremist ideologies” catch your eye. Then move down to the use of “violence to achieve political and ideological ends.” Then, if you will, note that ideology appears twice.
Now, I wonder what “ideology” the General might be talking about? Hmm?
Read the manual, read many manuals, read posture statements, and counter insurgency works noticing that the enemy is never named. The ideology is never specified. Doesn’t this bother anyone? It should. That is my issue. That is why I am disappointed in the newly overhauled manual. Moreover, it is why I am afraid we will not succeed in this conflict.
If you cannot name your enemy then you cannot defeat your enemy.
Anyone who has read Marcus Luttrell’s book, “Lone Survivor” should remember something about our infamous Rules Of Engagement (ROE) as well as the cost of not clearly defining the enemy. In order to define the ROE for a conflict the definition of the enemy is an epistemological must. The ROE determine when, where, and how force will be used. Against whom force is to be used should already be well known. If the enemy is not well defined then you experience more and more stories similar to that of Navy Seal Team 10. (BTW: This book is a must read.)
One of my old textbooks from the Ft. Benning Infantry School had this to say about ROE, “In all situations, soldiers and commanders use the degree of force that is militarily necessary, proportional to the threat, and prudent for future operations.”
I say, “Bull.”
We do no such thing.
Our civilian leadership has placed us in an overly constrained problem. How many degrees of freedom do we have? Not enough. It is imperative that we differentiate combatants from noncombatants. Over constraining the problem allows too much ambiguity. It gives the initiative to our enemy. It allows the enemy to define where, when, and how force will be used thus placing us in the role of the reactor rather than the actor. It puts us in the defensive rather than the offensive posture. And no one ever wins a defensive war. Ever.
So how do I explain our current success in Iraq? Easy. We really are the greatest Army ever to have marched on the face of the earth, but more than that we have become so adept at anticipating the enemies next move that we appear to be offensive. We appear to be acting when in fact we are really only reacting faster than most minds could ever follow.
Where am I going with all this? You didn’t come here for Army 101.
We on the “right” (so to speak) use the word “Islamofacist or Islamofacism” as terms to define our enemy. Let me propose to you that it is an inadequate definition. It sure is a kick in the teeth for those who are not used to hearing such talk, but it is not for serious usage. Let me propose to you a more comprehensive definition of our enemy. One even the military might consider using. That is …
Islam.
All Islam. It is, after all, a “cult of death” (even referenced as such on sites like Wikipedia). This was even proclaimed by Nasrallah when he stated “We love death!” Every sect, division, tribe, or faction. Islam. Period.
Say it with me. Islam. Say it again. Islam. Say it often. Say it loud.
Define them. Defeat them.
Mr. Hooah out.
(Now don’t you wish the lady of the house weren’t so busy?? Ha!)
Good morning! We saw a ‘higher up”, don’t recall his name or rank unfortunately, talking up the new manual on Steven Colbert. Explained how our soldiers must not only be a trained killing force, but also urban police, and role models of kindness to win hearts and minds and be ambassadors to the world~but ready to kill at a moments notice~before or after having tea and passing out candy. Makes me wonder how this new concept will be incorporated into basic training. How difficult is it for soldiers to flip the switch from vigilance and kill mode, to hand shaking, good will ambassador mode?
What effect will it have on their effectiveness? The conversation on Colbert raised many questions in our minds.
Nice pinch hitting there Mr. Hooah,
Cathy B
This needs to be said much more often. I think we are all rewarded with great posts no matter which Hooah posts :-)
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 03/12/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Eh, in all fairness I should say that Field Manuals and the like are not really the place to be specific about the definition of a given enemy. However, my aim is to point out the glaring absence of our enemies name from not only military codification but also civilian. The implications of not naming or defining the opposition are deadly. To us.
Thank you, Cathy B, for bringing up one of the implications in our own training. We have so poorly defined combatants and noncombatants that now our soldiers will have to develop mental disorders so that they can flip an internal switch allowing them to change “roles” at a moments notice. It is extremely difficult to make that switch. That’s why our good men have such a hard time dealing with “seeing the elephant” as it is.
It will certainly hurt our effectiveness more and more as this cognitive dissonance continues and is required in order the meet mission objectives but still stay within the limits set by bad civilian leadership.
God bless our soldiers for being able to perform so superbly under these conditions.
Hello Mr. Hooah,
The Hooah blog is always so interesting, regardless of which family member posts. Glad she took a day to do what she needs to away from the blog. She sure keeps the updates coming for all of her readers. A day away from the computer is a good to have every once in a while.
Your post was very interesting. And even though you said “Where am I going with all this? You didn’t come here for Army 101.” it was actually a bit of Army 101, which is good. I cant say I know all that much about the military (only what my friend has told me and the little bit of military history type stuff I know) so this was a good post for us “out of the loop” types.
Jade
Thanks Mr. Hooah. We enjoy your post when the Mrs.’s is not available.
Jade, Stacy - You’re both very welcome and thank you both for your encouraging comments. Good to know I didn’t lay an egg on this one. :)
[...] Stand-To!- Transformation of Army bands - March 13, 2008 Edition: Thu, March 13, 2008 Rich-text Version WHAT THEY’RE SAYING
:-) I mulled over this for a long while :-) My long-winded .02 cents…
I do agree that it is important we define our enemies with clarity. I wrestle, however, with tarring ALL of Islam with the same brush. :-)
Some of this may come from the impact it has had on my native land. Islam has given India some of her greatest cultural treasures and musical traditions. I also think of the poetry of Rumi, and Omar Khayyam, the graceful architecture of the Alhambra or the beautiful arches of Cordoba in Spain…surely beauty that can be created only from something deep and lyrical within.
Sure, India has seen its more than its share of Hindu-Muslim violence - most memorably during the Partition of 1947 when nearly a million died during the creation of two nations - in an orgy of violence that split family and friends alike. India has also been at war with Pakistan. However, for the better part of 800 years - it has been a peaceful coexistence. India’s last President, is in fact, a Muslim: Dr. Abdul Kalam.
Where I have LONG had an problem (this goes back decades) is not seeing moderate Islamics taking a tough stand against those Islamofascists that are destroying their faith from within. Nasrallah and his fellow nutters among them. Whatever the reason (fear? coercion?) their inability to stand up against evil is hampering genuine progress for their faith as a whole.
Islamofascists….I think that word works better for me, because it defines groups with an evil intent rather than an entire faith out to get the world?
gently,
-Piper
p.s., if I may…
Some of the other things I would like them to get rid of…burkhas, forced arranged marriages for underage girls (happens a lot in the UK - among both Muslim and Hindu families….but I keep reading mostly about the Muslims!). madrassas…hmmm….I can add many more…
Hi Piper… I am responding to your post (Mr. Hooah! can pop on later to say hi…) but I think you raise some good points, and I really do appreciate your response. I have been pondering it all day myself, but I didn’t want your response to go unanswered today.
When I read the responses you left I have to wonder if we just need to differentiate between “Muslim Culture” and “Islam.” I am not a scholar on Islam, but I have had to study it’s basic components in my philosophy and religions of the world classes. I have to wonder if we got rid of the basic components like the full cover for women, arranged marriages, the status of women in general, and even jihad… if we would be left only with the “Muslim Culture” and that is where the beauty lies within (of which you wrote about) — I do not consider all Muslims my enemy.
I can see your argument for the beauty of the culture, but sadly enough I think that Islam has stunted the growth of the Culture and what they have been able to contribute to the arts and sciences in the more immediate history (really in the last several hundred years). Islam, in and of itself, is not a religion that exhorts its followers to richly enjoy the bounteous pleasures on earth — or course I think that hedonism is wrong too, but there is balance somewhere, and that balance does greatly contribute to the senses that allow art to be made beautiful and to be enjoyed (really if you aren’t allowed to enjoy something then you are not likely to create it…) All of that is a small theory and just my own speculation… just thinking out loud, if you will.
The other thing I have been pondering for quite a while now is whether or not Islam — the religion, is in it’s own sort of “Reformation.” When the Protestant Reformation took place, essentially Christians reclaimed the Christian Religion as their own, and not something that they had to go through Rome to understand nor did they believe they had to go through Rome to earn their salvation or obtain Grace. They got these ideas when scripture was becoming more readily available and read in many languages… translated for the common eyes for the first time. What they discovered through reading the scriptures is that there were a lot of things going on that were not, in any way shape or form, supported by the canonized scriptures. So, with their foundation (their Holy writings) they reformed the church. It was bloody also, and it cost many, many men and women their lives, but they reclaimed their religion and that is the only reason we have any Christian religions outside of the RCC today. The Reformation was also a long process that took many, many decades and had to spread over many continents. It was not a single event (even though some believe that the Reformation began and ended when Luther nailed his 99 theses to doors of Wittenberg Church!) The Reformation that happened really wound up benefiting both the RCC and the Protestant faith. The RCC has come much closer to practicing within the Scriptures, and they got rid of abuses like indulgences and church taxes.
Now, with that in mind… I have to wonder what would have happened if our scripture text would have called for Christians to dominate and tax, enslave, or kill any one who would not convert? I can guarantee that Christians would not have been supporters and framers of our wonderful Constitutional freedoms. So, if Islam’s holy text demands submission or death, and this is the “true Islam” reclaiming their faith, then how could the moderates fight back? If the Qur’an is not on the side of the moderates then they are strictly on the defensive, and they will lose Islam.
I seriously have no problem, whatsoever, living next door to a peace loving, law abiding Muslim. I respect all of my fellow Americans who respect the laws of the land… I would be fearful though of being close by someone practicing Islam in a fundamental way. We see sharia law being dealt out even in America (like the cab driver who recently murdered his daughters… lots of stories like that). That worries me greatly.
Thank you for posting at your place about the Partition of India. I remember studying it very briefly in a humanities class, but I plan on reading the information you posted on it this weekend. It’s a much neglected piece of history. Also, thank you for the rich dialog on this topic. I think your response is very honest and thoughtful. I am interested in any other thoughts you have on the matter if you are up to writing more.
Hi, Claire!
Busy DIY weekend for me…do forgive the delay. I’m delighted as always to see a fair exchange of ideas on your blog :-)
Thank you for that.
I was drawn first to your comment on whether Islam is in a state of Reformation as a faith. That’s an interesting viewpoint…and for their sake, I sincerely hope so. If there is a Martin Luther for them, a visible force for positive change – then I would love to see them step forward. Or perhaps an Islamic leader with as much intensity and the ability to impact social change as leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King…
I reflected on the part about the Qur’an exhorting submission or death and other societal rules to live by. I’d be happy to be proven wrong here; I’m curious how much of that is a complete misinterpretation of the scriptures by a toxic minority – to the point where that misrepresentation becomes truth?
Rampant fundamentalism – I think we both agree on its insidious dangers. We need to address it now – it’s an issue that crosses religious borders.
Complete aside: India has played host to almost all the world’s faiths over thousands of years. In that time, we’ve seen the best and the most questionable of human behavior and shades in between – by every faith. That includes Islam and if I am being intellectually honest – Hinduism. (Ask me sometime about the –modern day – volatile Ram Janmabhoomi issue) Christianity, while not directly involved in bloody conflicts has had an insidious impact on the (once easy) relationship between British officer and Indian soldier beginning in the 1800’s . Missionaries coming over to India worked hard to separate white man and native using the Bible as their prop. The complete mistrust and isolationism this generated had a large impact on the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, when garrisons across (mainly Northern) India rose up against their officers. Relationships were never the same again; the Mutiny is often seen as the first step in the struggle for Indian independence.
Back (finally) to the main point: You mentioned the difference between culture and faith; interestingly enough on the subcontinent, the two are inextricably, and inexorably, linked = with many of our cultural traditions today (those thoughts/actions/deeds that define us) rooted in over a thousand years of faith. Even in modern India.
I was actually chatting with someone the other day and we both wondered aloud why it is that two nations - India and Pakistan are poles apart when it comes to economic development – when we should be more or less in the same quadrant. I think we can both make an educated guess why!
Btw, I should add that I did not mean to inadvertently imply anything about how we each interact with law-abiding Muslim neighbors I was just personally wrestling with the definition of the word for a common enemy.
I need to get back to a cabinet – this continues to be a great discussion – and once again thank you!
thoughtfully,
-piper
Hey Piper… thank you for such a good discussion too… I am thinking and chewing on it all.
I just wanted to leave a quick comment to let you know that you in no way implied anything about law abiding Muslims in your reply. I think I get very cautious since this is a public blog… I know that you would not need me to say that (it would be understood), but I sometimes state the obvious so that others who read the posts and comments understand too. Some folks only drop in once and for a moment, and I would never want anyone to misunderstand things. I know that hard things have to be said, but oh boy, there is such a huge responsibility in the way we say them. I think I have an a hugely sore conscience when it comes to anyone misunderstanding my intent (… so it was more for my own benefit in the long run. ;) )