Overheard on Albie Speer's Marine Officer Selection Course

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yeah, I know this - it's the "obey orders without question" that worries me. One thing is to automatically secure a position; react sensibly in a combat situation etc. but another thing is to follow stupid orders "because that is your orders". Such as "attack the heavy armed bunker across 200 m of open land" etc. Most danish soldiers would consider such an order stupid and think about alternative ways to take out the target, while US soliders are trained to do the stupid thing.

If there's alternatives, you take them. If there's not, you have to do it the dirty way. If that bunker is hanging up your ability to move to the achieve an objective, then you have to deal with it by whatever means are available. Most of the time, we have plenty of means available.


One real good way that worked in the Gulf war was M1 Abrams would just drive over them and flatten them with the Iraqis inside. Apparently, enough lived for word to get out, so when an Abrams appeared, those bunkers emptied out fast.

[regexcellent]

How about because murdering innocent people is a complete breach of the Geneva Convention, not to mention a ****ing war crime? You start loosening ROE and the number of innocent people dying goes through the roof. If you don't have to be completely sure that someone is a threat, then are you really going to put your life at risk when you can shoot them and make sure?

Do you have any evidence that innocent people getting killed goes through the roof through slight restrictions on ROE? For instance, we have a rule that on snatch and grab missions we have to use bullhorns to announce that we're coming in. Even police do ****ing no knock warrants, so this is totally insane.

Besides which, in war, some innocent people are going to die and it's only a war "crime" if they get killed deliberately and not as part of an attack on enemy combatants. Also war crimes are just gentleman's agreements anyway and if one side doesn't follow it the other side shouldn't either. The reason we don't kill civilians is so that our enemies don't kill our civilians, but they do it anyway, so why bother. The civilians, those who actually are civilians, should do the right thing and just get the hell out of the way of the fighting, which is what people have done for time immemorial.

Meanwhile our men are getting killed and wounded by following our insanely legalistic rules about when they can or can't do their ****ing jobs.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Actually, civilians have been ****ed from time immemorial. They often don't have many options to get out of the way, or they get used as human shields. etc. Particularly situations like 'Nam and the 'stan, where the *******s basically own the terrain and the night. Who are you gonna listen too, the big American grunts who occupy an area for a short time, or operate sporadically, or the local *******s who will come in the night and cut your entire family's heads off to prove a point?

ROEs from western governments are excessive, from the UN they're ****ing insane, because politicians in those countries, and the press, and the public, have the luxury of not really having close, personal reminders how dirty a business warfighting truly is.

[Aeson]

The reason we don't kill civilians is so that our enemies don't kill our civilians, but they do it anyway, so why bother.

We bother because we're not filthy barbarians anymore ... (some exceptions of course, such as yourself)

[Ben Kenobi]

I've never heard Apolyton condemn anyone who didn't follow the geneva accord as a 'filthy barbarian'. They seem to reserve that term soley for Americans.

[Alexander's Horse]

I wouldn't like to be a junior military leader these days. In fact I advised one of my sons not to go the military academy.

With the eye in the sky everyone is looking over their shoulder, generals, lawyers, journalists you name it. The trouble is cameras are not 3D and nothing is ever textbook. A civilian casualty usually triggered at least 3 inquiries - local command, national command (flying in an investigative team) and coalition command if it made the media. Same with own cas or blue on blue. I thought it was lunacy. How can you fight a war like that? Especially with Terry Taliban fighting a dirty war and doing whatever they wanted.

[molly bloom]

I've never heard Apolyton condemn anyone who didn't follow the geneva accord as a 'filthy barbarian'. They seem to reserve that term soley for Americans.

I think that the people who destroyed libraries and communities in Croatia during the Balkan conflicts are 'filthy barbarians'. I think the people who killed Bosnian Muslims for the crime of being Bosnian Muslims are filthy barbarians. I think the begetters of the Rwandan/Burundian genocides are filthy barbarians. I think that the enablers of the genocide in Darfur are filthy barbarians.

Whatever 'filthy barbarians' is meant to imply in those instances...

It'll be quite a long list, but you get the idea

[regexcellent]

We bother because we're not filthy barbarians anymore ... (some exceptions of course, such as yourself)

Apparently you didn't bother to understand what I wrote.

I'm not advocating running around killing civilians, I'm advocating being less legalistic and "careful" because it's stopping us from completing the mission.

An officer has the following priorities:
1. The mission
2. The men
3. Himself

in that order.

Do you see civilians on that list? If they went anywhere they'd be number 4. Our rules of engagement puts them above the mission, which is completely insane.

[Hauldren Collider]

None of that matters to Aeson, he's apt to pretend that everyone who annoys him is secretly Hitler. He's fabricated an elaborate fantasy about my political beliefs, most of which run directly counter to my actual beliefs, in order to do so. He's almost as honest as Ben Kenobi.

[DaShi]

Perhaps you should clarify your beliefs.

[giblets]

Do you have any evidence that innocent people getting killed goes through the roof through slight restrictions on ROE? For instance, we have a rule that on snatch and grab missions we have to use bullhorns to announce that we're coming in. Even police do ****ing no knock warrants, so this is totally insane.

Besides which, in war, some innocent people are going to die and it's only a war "crime" if they get killed deliberately and not as part of an attack on enemy combatants. Also war crimes are just gentleman's agreements anyway and if one side doesn't follow it the other side shouldn't either. The reason we don't kill civilians is so that our enemies don't kill our civilians, but they do it anyway, so why bother. The civilians, those who actually are civilians, should do the right thing and just get the hell out of the way of the fighting, which is what people have done for time immemorial.

Meanwhile our men are getting killed and wounded by following our insanely legalistic rules about when they can or can't do their ****ing jobs.

It's immoral to kill civilians regardless of what the enemy is doing and the laws of war should be followed at all times. Saying you only want to avoid killing a civilian because it's part of some agreement where the enemy agrees to give something in exchange is messed up.

[regexcellent]

Killing civilians deliberately is wrong. Killing them by accident in the process of completing a legitimate military objective is not wrong. International agreements have constructed rules designed to minimize civilian casualties; both sides follow them at a detriment to their overall warfighting capability but in the interest of preserving civilian life, the rules are followed. When one side doesn't follow the rules, the other side should not continue to fight with one hand behind its back. The objective of war is to win, not help preserve life on the enemy's side.

So no, you are mistaken about military priorities.

Our enemies deliberately target civilians. Meanwhile, we go to insane lengths of dubious utility to protect civilians despite the fact that it hurts the war effort. In light of that, we should be willing to be more cavalier. When you need brigade or division level authorization for weapons release because of bureaucratic nonsense designed to protect civilians, you get our men killed, you don't save many (OR ANY) civilians, and you hamper our ability to actually win. I care way more about our men and the mission than I do about Afghan civilians. (Obviously; everybody should)

[Aeson]

Apparently you didn't bother to understand what I wrote.

I understand it perfectly. You can't see why we would bother to observe treaties we've signed, or why we'd place innocent civilian lives so highly.

That is because you're a dirty barbarian.

I'm not advocating running around killing civilians, I'm advocating being less legalistic and "careful" because it's stopping us from completing the mission.

You're just crying about how many restraints there are on killing civilians.

An officer has the following priorities:
1. The mission
2. The men
3. Himself

in that order.

Do you see civilians on that list?

No. I don't see a lot of other things on that list. If we take your list as gospel (which I certainly do not), in a case where the officer was ordered to kill hundreds of women and children, he would be "right" in doing so, and even in killing his own men if they tried to stop him from doing so.

The fact you blindly accept such a list as valid is why you're a dirty barbarian.

[Aeson]

None of that matters to Aeson, he's apt to pretend that everyone who annoys him is secretly Hitler.

Regardless of whether you agree with me or not about how horrible a person you are, only a great moron would believe that "secretly" could possibly fit into that statement. Thus you are either a liar or a great moron. I will let you choose which it is.

He's fabricated an elaborate fantasy about my political beliefs, most of which run directly counter to my actual beliefs, in order to do so.

All my statements about you or your beliefs are there to address directly if you ever grow the balls to do so, *****.

[DaShi]

That is because you're a dirty barbarian.

I'd say he either really does have the mindset of a typical army grunt (God bless them) or so wants to be part of the "club" that he's willing to convince himself to believe things that he thinks the "club" members believe. Either way, he's not very bright.