RE: Do you think American soldiers are put on too high of a pedestal
January 18, 2017 at 2:27 pm
(This post was last modified: January 18, 2017 at 2:27 pm by FatAndFaithless.)
(January 18, 2017 at 2:21 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(January 18, 2017 at 2:15 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Erm...I wouldn't call things like rules of engagement or limits to what the military can do as being 'politically correct.'
The reason Vietnam was fought this way, was because video/cameras were starting to become popular, allowing people to see the effects of war and how horrible it is. The US government/leaders didn't want people to see how horrible it was so they half assed the war, setting all kinds of limitations and perimeters to the military that didn't make any sense, for the sake of saving their face. Partially by using agent orange... which at the end only made things worse.
I still don't see your point... You're saying the US Military needs less oversight in its operations, so that the war gets done quicker? What about the rules of engagement...or things like the geneva conventions...or non-proliferation treaties...or the Chemical Weapons Convention? I'm assuming you'd draw the line somewhere. Hell, agent orange couldn't be used now specifically because of oversight. Would you prefer the military do "whatever it takes" as long as we don't see/hear about it?
I'm not sure I see what any of this has to do with being 'politically correct,' it's about what kind of conduct is appropriate for our military and how we'd like our allies' militaries to act as well.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Jefferson