Posted on Apr 14, 2017
trump-military-total-authorization-afghanistan-iraq
1.55K
4
4
2
2
0
1. I'm fine with this. Politicians shouldn't dictate our tactics and strategy.
2. We better still hold our military leaders accountable for any mistakes that result in unnecessary collateral damage.
3. This doesn't alleviate Trump, his cabinet, his advisers, nor Congress' responsibility to ensure we remain in the rule of law when it comes to warfare.
4. And it's not the President's military, it's America's military. Words and context do matter. Reflects state of mind on a subject.
5. What's the exit strategy? Our military needs clear guidance other than do what you have to do to kill the enemy.
2. We better still hold our military leaders accountable for any mistakes that result in unnecessary collateral damage.
3. This doesn't alleviate Trump, his cabinet, his advisers, nor Congress' responsibility to ensure we remain in the rule of law when it comes to warfare.
4. And it's not the President's military, it's America's military. Words and context do matter. Reflects state of mind on a subject.
5. What's the exit strategy? Our military needs clear guidance other than do what you have to do to kill the enemy.
trump-military-total-authorization-afghanistan-iraq
Posted from militarytimes.com
War on Terror
Middle East
Donald Trump
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
Major, I totally agree. Rhetoric designed as bravado is ineffective and our military, although the best in the world, is not all inclusive and self-sustaining...civilian oversite guarantees accountability and logic are applied instead of the possibility of compulsive decision-making tactics. Plus we need the CYA Factor to protect us from ourselves.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Keep in mind: GENEVA CONVENTION, RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS
IN TIME OF WAR OF 12 AUGUST 1949, Article 28 - The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. There is implied responsibility that non-combatants should, if possible, remove themselves from areas of combat operations.
This is one of the short falls of written communication; what do you mean by "... any mistakes that result in unnecessary collateral damage." I believe that there is a difference between collateral damaged from actions based on faulty intelligence, collateral damage from actions caused by simple negligence, collateral damage from actions caused by gross negligence, and collateral damaged from actions carried out in malfeasance and with malice aforethought.
IN TIME OF WAR OF 12 AUGUST 1949, Article 28 - The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. There is implied responsibility that non-combatants should, if possible, remove themselves from areas of combat operations.
This is one of the short falls of written communication; what do you mean by "... any mistakes that result in unnecessary collateral damage." I believe that there is a difference between collateral damaged from actions based on faulty intelligence, collateral damage from actions caused by simple negligence, collateral damage from actions caused by gross negligence, and collateral damaged from actions carried out in malfeasance and with malice aforethought.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
Let me clarify any mistakes that result in unnecessary collateral damage for you. Misidentification of a target as hostile that turns out to be a civilian site resulting in casualties. Precision guided munitions with the intent to limit collateral damage but the opposite had occurred. A covert operation that goes bad, escalates, and increased civilian casualties.
Your 1949 Geneva Convention post WWII law was to ensure guidance in conventional warfare we don't arbitrarily target population centers without minimizing effects on non-combatants and still authorize combat. "If possible" is something battlefield commanders need to emphasize. Regardless faulty intel or gross negligence, it doesn't change the matter of holding leaders accountable. And holding leaders accountable doesn't mean court martial, lawsuits, or relief of cause. It means transparency, investigate, corrective action to prevent repeating mistakes.
Your 1949 Geneva Convention post WWII law was to ensure guidance in conventional warfare we don't arbitrarily target population centers without minimizing effects on non-combatants and still authorize combat. "If possible" is something battlefield commanders need to emphasize. Regardless faulty intel or gross negligence, it doesn't change the matter of holding leaders accountable. And holding leaders accountable doesn't mean court martial, lawsuits, or relief of cause. It means transparency, investigate, corrective action to prevent repeating mistakes.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Well we do have a civilian Secretary Of Defense, oh wait a minute!!! I would say this is the reason some people didn't want an EX General in there. I think he means well, but he is use to having a Military end state in conducting missions
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google