In modern warfare the Rules of Engagement(ROE) have become hanncuffs and in my opinion a desisive factor in the outcome of battles. Most nations that we have encountered on the battle field(a relative term), do not follow any ROE.
The Australians encountered this in Vietnam. The "Team" as they were known, were not the first to realise this, but they were the first to covertly negate them. They felt that if the VC, wanted to "play" war by any means nessaccary, They to would conduct warfare in their theater in the same fashion.
Australia's Commanders in South Vietnam saw great changes in the casualty numbers, of the enemy and less of its own men.
This return to "street fighting" type engagement, led to conflicts between Australia's Commanders and those at MAC V, even though the US commanders agreed that the tactics would have been benneficial, the implications if brought to light on the home front would have been disasterous. This led to a divide between US and Australian Commanders and so on down the chain of command to eventually includethe troops. A conflict began even amungst front line soldiers, that colminated in teh Australians engaging in huge fights. One such altercation ended with a regiment from 6 RAR, ejecting a platoon of US Marines from their own mess hall.
Although, the eventual withdrawl of Austalian Troops from Vietnam was considered to be from growing pressure of Austalia's public on the Government, as well as a view of the war being "un winnable". It has been rumoured around certain circles that the US politely asked the Austalian Government to pull out, due to the fact that they viewed The RAR Troops as uncontollable.
I have always thought that the ROE was a set of handcuffs, a sort of moral code of conduct to make ourselves feel better about how we conduct war.
Ok, if you waded through that, this is my question. As much as the ROE seperates "us" from "them", do you believe that the US could have won the war in Vietnam, and in our time, do you think if we were to opt out of the Geneiva convention and scrap the ROE, do you think we could win the now "un winnable" Afghan war and completely free Iraq?
The Australians encountered this in Vietnam. The "Team" as they were known, were not the first to realise this, but they were the first to covertly negate them. They felt that if the VC, wanted to "play" war by any means nessaccary, They to would conduct warfare in their theater in the same fashion.
Australia's Commanders in South Vietnam saw great changes in the casualty numbers, of the enemy and less of its own men.
This return to "street fighting" type engagement, led to conflicts between Australia's Commanders and those at MAC V, even though the US commanders agreed that the tactics would have been benneficial, the implications if brought to light on the home front would have been disasterous. This led to a divide between US and Australian Commanders and so on down the chain of command to eventually includethe troops. A conflict began even amungst front line soldiers, that colminated in teh Australians engaging in huge fights. One such altercation ended with a regiment from 6 RAR, ejecting a platoon of US Marines from their own mess hall.
Although, the eventual withdrawl of Austalian Troops from Vietnam was considered to be from growing pressure of Austalia's public on the Government, as well as a view of the war being "un winnable". It has been rumoured around certain circles that the US politely asked the Austalian Government to pull out, due to the fact that they viewed The RAR Troops as uncontollable.
I have always thought that the ROE was a set of handcuffs, a sort of moral code of conduct to make ourselves feel better about how we conduct war.
Ok, if you waded through that, this is my question. As much as the ROE seperates "us" from "them", do you believe that the US could have won the war in Vietnam, and in our time, do you think if we were to opt out of the Geneiva convention and scrap the ROE, do you think we could win the now "un winnable" Afghan war and completely free Iraq?
