Language

The rules of engagement

Submitted August 4, 2006 - 10:52 pm by Bill Conroy
If there is no room for restraint, judgment, among Marines, or any soldier, even in a hostile situation, then you draw no line between "war" and atrocity.

And if you do see such a line, then where does that line start?

If you concede there is a line, then you must entertain exceptions to your blanket statement that anytime a Marine is fired upon, "it's them or the person firing."

For example, if firing back results in the loss of innocent life, is that war or attrocity? How many people are soldiers (or nations for that matter) allowed to kill once fired upon before it becomes an atrocity?

On the theory that Marines can never be in the wrong when in a hostile situation, you might want to refresh your memory with the facts from this story in Editor & Publisher:

... The 11th Infantry-Brigade went into My Lai at 7 a.m. on March 16. Military intelligence led the company to believe there would be no resistance, but once there the group got reports that their gunships were receiving fire. 1st Lt. William L. Calley Jr., one of the platoon leaders, relayed an order to "clear the area."

Accounts at the time differed widely about what happened, but by the end of the day, My Lai was indeed cleared of its inhabitants.

... According to a Nov. 20, 2005 Marine communiqué, the Marines received fire from insurgents in Haditha, and returned fire themselves. Once the battle ended, 15 civilians were dead. However, this story was soon challenged by allegations that the Marines killed civilians in reprisal for the death of Terrazas. After a preliminary investigation in February 2006 caused Marine officials to doubt the original communiqué, the military announced that the civilians had been shot dead and were not killed by the IED blast as previously stated.

In both the case of Haditha and My Lai, the soldiers involved were clearly in-country under incredible stress in hostile situations where bullets were flying at them every day.

Under your theory of "all bets are off," you should be able to justify the massacres. Are you willing to go that far?

Or are you willing to admit that your rules of engagement have some blind spots?

"To save your world you asked this man to die; would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" — W. H. Auden

Reply

Our Policy on Comment Submissions: Co-publishers of Narco News (which includes The Narcosphere and The Field) may post comments without moderation. All co-publishers comment under their real name, have contributed resources or volunteer labor to this project, have filled out this application and agreed to some simple guidelines about commenting.

Narco News has recently opened its comments section for submissions to moderated comments (that’s this box, here) by everybody else. More than 95 percent of all submitted comments are typically approved, because they are on-topic, coherent, don’t spread false claims or rumors, don’t gratuitously insult other commenters, and don’t engage in commerce, spam or otherwise hijack the thread. Narco News reserves the right to reject any comment for any reason, so, especially if you choose to comment anonymously, the burden is on you to make your comment interesting and relevant. That said, as you can see, hundreds of comments are approved each week here. Good luck in your comment submission!

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

User login