Originally Posted by
Hangarshuffle
TomJoad
Just read your reply again. The bad guys win then? They are winning? Against us? Does this, would this not give them some tactical advantage, if they are savvy to our ROE?
It seems ridiculous.
Not sure that is the conclusion I would draw Hangershuffle.
Does knowledge of your enemies ROEs give you a tactical advantage - of course it does. Should you use the constrictions of your enemies ROEs against them - of course you should! If the Taliban do not do that then they are idiots - and they are not that.
Look, there should be no surprises here, but I must admit having some surprise at the questions being asked wrt legitimacy of pursuing the enemy when they are no longer in the game. As for understanding the pressure of the heat of the moment - yes we understand that, armchair warrior or not. But it does not justify murder nor should it. Consider - it would be a poor defence for the murderers of Lee Rigby to ask "judge me after having walked a mile in my shoe". No, we have the highest respect for our soldiers, sailers and airmen because we hold them to the highest of standards. Does that automatically mean that the bad guys win, no I don't think it does as it has not in the past. If the bad guys ultimately win in Afghanistan perhaps it will be for altogether different reasons. However, if we abandon the conventions that keep us true such as GC and ROEs for expediency then we certainly loose.