Like so many "new" liberal ways and thinking, PC or Political Correctness found its beginning in one of the more liberal countries in Europe. PC caught on immediately with other European countries and came literally flying across the Atlantic to America. We in America seem think that anything originating in Europe, must be good. Why else do we take such pains to emulate European fashions and customs? Note how Madison Avenue is always using terms like, "latest European fashion," or "European Style," etc. Conversely, Europeans who look down their noses at us as "uncultured," rough mannered folks, don't hesitate to copy our music and other elements of popular culture. Blue jeans (strictly an American thing!) have become standard in Europe as well as the rest of the world. Baseball caps, rock and roll, hot dogs and hamburgers, the list goes on and on. But, when it comes to intellectual elements of culture, we take more from Europe than they do from us.
Such is the case with Political Correctness. We accepted PC with open arms and now have taken it beyond what the Europeans started. In short, we have over-reacted, as usual, and now have become victims of it! Some of our candidates for the coming presidential election are using this particular theme, saying that PC is killing our country. Perhaps they are overhyping the situation, perhaps not. They are, however, correct in that PC has done great damage to our country, our society as a whole. PC has done irreparable damage in some areas of our culture and society and it has greatly damaged our military and its ability to carry out their mission, that of fighting wars.
It all began during Vietnam War, when we started to pay more attention to what others may say or think about our conduct of war rather than trying to win! An ancient Chinese philosopher said, never go to war unless you are prepared to carry it out to the end, to win! Very simple and direct, doesn't have any hidden meanings, not a riddle, means exactly what it says. Yet, we have not followed this simple line of thought since Vietnam! There were only three short wars in which we followed the ancient advice on war. Our Invasion of Grenada, Invasion of Panama, and the First Gulf War. We entered those wars prepared to carry them out to the end and win, which we did. The subsequent war in Afghanistan and the Second Gulf War in Iraq did not follow the same line. In both wars, initially we seemed to have entered the wars to win, but things got muddled with too many cooks in the kitchen and too many rules! The result is what we have today.
During World War Two, if you asked a G.I. in Europe what he was doing there, he would have responded in one way or another that he was there to fight the Nazis, to prevent them from taking over the world. If you asked a Marine in the Pacific, you would have gotten the same answer except that it would have been Imperial Japan instead of Nazis. By the time you got to Korea five years later, things were not quite as clear, but still, the response would have been to fight communists, to help South Korea. Vietnam also was clear cut at first, to help South Vietnam from getting overrun by the communist Viet Cong and NVA.
To that point, it was a fairly clear cut mission for our fighting men. Engage the enemy and defeat the enemy. If you were a flier, you did this by bombing and strafing. If you were on the ground, you engaged the enemy in ground combat and tried to destroy the enemy to the best of your ability. But as the Vietnam War progressed, things began to change. The American fighting man was asked to risk his life and face the enemy, but with certain rules applied, such as the enemy was to be left alone in certain areas or the enemy could not be pursued beyond a certain point. Rules began to pop-up making things difficult for the American fighting men who had an extremely difficult job to begin with! Essentially the G.I.s and Marines in Vietnam were asked to fight the enemy with one hand tied behind their backs!
Under such conditions, it didn't take long for the morale to start sagging. But why did this happen? How did these restrictions come about when they didn't exist before, not during World War Two, not during Korean War. Our changing society, which embraced such new "intellectual" concepts as Political Correctness began to affect our thinking even when engaging in war! We were slipping back to the days of chivalrous behavior on the battle field, like the famous soccer game between Germans and British on Christmas day during World War One. At least it seemed that way. There were Rules of Engagement that we were to follow. It didn't matter that the enemy paid no attention to any convention, any rules. The enemy fought every way it could to win, while we fought by rules established by some lawyers in Washington!
The reason we were successful in the three wars mentioned earlier that were short was because of their shortness, there was no time for these ridiculous Rules of Engagement to take effect! Let me just give you an example of just few of these ROEs that our fighting men and women have to abide by in Afghanistan and Iraq or anywhere else where we are engaged in a war against terrorism.
--"Don't shoot fleeing hostile actors." This means don't shoot at enemy if they turn and run!
--"Only use minimum force (in self defense)." What the hell does this mean? Another ridiculous rule....
--"Shoot one and assess." Assess what? If you are being shot at that means the other guy is trying to kill you, so you shoot once and wait?
The dumbest one of all is what is known as five S's. Our fighting men and women are taught to apply the five S's in combat!
--1."Shout" 2."Show" 3."Shove" 4."Shoot"(warning) and 5."Shoot" (to stop threat). There's a good chance you'll be in a body bag by the time you go through all five S's!
Who the hell thinks up these stupid rules? The JAG office. Everyone today is so concerned with being charged for misconduct or inappropriate use of force that most G.I.s are reluctant to engage the enemy! There are more soldiers and marines serving time for having fired their weapons or engaged enemy "improperly" than ever before. In fact, we've never had so many soldiers in stockades or brigs held on such charges before! During the well known and bloody Battle of Fallujah, the JAG released another "rule" which became part of the package since. The rule was/is: "Do not shoot military aged males, even if they are armed, unless they are pointing or firing their weapons at friendly forces."
Are you kidding me? A soldier or a marine in the heat of the battle is supposed to withhold firing at an enemy unless he is pointing or firing his weapon?
I didn't make this up, these are actual our Rules of Engagement (ROE) written by JAG lawyers! ROE written by lawyers who never saw combat, have no idea what combat is all about. Yet, they dictate how our fighting men and women are supposed to fight!
As more rules are written, to conform to Political Correctness, our leaders become more and more confused. Our generals are reluctant to back their troops and rubber stamp charges filed against our fighting men and women, whether deserving or not. Those generals that object to this new approach to running the military are fired, usually reported in the media as having been "critical" of administration's conduct of war against terrorism. That explanation is partially correct. But the main reason that some senior officers, both field grade and general are fired or forced into retirement is because of their objection to this new military that is just obsessed with rules!
Given this new "climate" under which we are supposed to conduct warfare, it is a small wonder that the military leaders are confused and muddled in their approach on how to fight ISIS or any one else for that matter. Neither ISIS/ISIL nor Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram or any other terror group for that matter, follows any rules of engagement! They use civilians as shields, women and children as suicide bombers, and kill American soldiers any way they can. But we have to abide by ROE, some silly rules as mentioned above. I am not suggesting that we should also use the same tactics as the terrorists, I am only saying that at least we should level the battlefield and get rid of those ridiculous Rules of Engagement! But that won't happen. If anything there will be more rules added! That's just how our system operates. Once we latch on to something, we ride it until it self destructs!
No comments:
Post a Comment