"What the media get wrong is..."

[Oscar_Kipling]

Does anyone think that some of the impetus to lie spin, exaggerate or minimize in the media comes from our tendency to demand that things like wars on terror be talked about as wars between good and true evil or as the result of the abject oppression and cruelty of insatiable colonialist appetites? Is dry dispassionate analysis really what an enterprising capitalist would-be media mogul extract from this thread as a means of exploiting the desires demonstrated here or anywhere really? I could pick my battles better certainly, but do we really feel like what us on display here is an overwhelming demand for detached honesty? take it how you will, but its a real question of anyone who wants to look at themselves, and say whether or not they feel their is an incongruity between the complaint of the media's narrative curation and 24 hour firehosing approach and what we actually want with our actions. I of course could be wrong, and i'm happy for anyone to tell me as much, but everywhere I look (not just here everywhere) I genuinely see folks asking for one thing on one level but giving every signifier that they want the other thing. This is only bolstered imo by the overwhelming success of the abhored thing and the steady depreciation of the celebrated. How do you explain that? Is it just the spiritual entropy I'm always hearing about, a march toward the inevitable despite what huge swaths of the populous claim to detest? Is it all just the other guys that are responsible, and the apparent duplication that I see on every kind of forum and platform I lurk on just a sort of illusion conjured by my biases and crappy personality? Am I actually as alone in feeling personally responsible for this quagmire as I feel? Do you not feel responsible? is that an offensive question? i

Can ya boil this down to "a" question, so focus can remain on "a" line of thought?

haha, I'm anything but concise, but I also do not believe that every idea can be trimmed down to an easily digestible bite...I think more is being demanded of us and we aren't answering the call to rise to the occasion. I think it would be good to ask, does our prioritization of laconic wit and wisdom over perceived elitist scrupulous detail just turn our media into a machine that feeds us just that?

TLDR: Do you honestly believe that you aren't contributing to and molding the media landscape into the very thing that you (we all) object to by doing things like framing wars as righteous battles between good and evil when what they actually are is something much more complicated and much less unambiguously heroic? (I honestly did my best)

The biggest problem with any media is they are saying so much, the truth can't be found anymore in all their words.

If they simply stated the facts and let the listener determine the truth, we'd find truth in media.

Okay, yes, but do you think the media is like that entirely due to forces and people outside of and dissimilar to yourself, or do you see anything within yourself that contributes to this objectionable state? Does war cast as an-epic-struggle-between-good-&-evil-otherwise-the-terrorists-win promote a dispassionate accounting of the facts or does it apply pressure to the media to conform to this notion, truth be damned as it were?

I gather from your partial accounting of when and where you served that you were active duty during 911. Our current media/tech landscape was already pupating and 911 gave it all the nourishment that it needed, or gave us permission to feed it. This is a simplification of course, but while it makes sense to me to blame bad guys for doing bad stuff like 911's and such, I feel responsible for how I reacted to it, and how I let it mold me and how I went on to mold the world around me in my infinitesimal but not quite inconsequential way. I cannot help but feel that we didn't get here without us all contributing in our own way, and we certainly don't get out without working much harder and more deliberately than we did to get into it because we are working to turn tides that started long before us. idk man, I suspect you are proud of your service, I'm proud that I served, I'd do it again in a heartbeat if for some reason my country was desperate enough to need my not-so-young-anymore back to carry some load, but do you ever feel like perhaps the entire enterprise lacks some meaningful nuance that wouldn't have actually served us all a little better given the consequences?

Politics, woke/liberal/progressive ideology, they all hinder a purpose of Government as detailed in Scripture, here is the purpose that is hindered:

Romans 13: 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

As I've been stating, evil is now good and good is now evil.

Anyway, concerning purpose for war as you seem to raise, I'll give you an example. For Iraqi Freedom, I went into combat back in 2004 the rules of engagement were simple, see enemy = kill them. We didn't even let enemy get first rounds off as much as possible. My men were very alert and as such, were "hard" targets. I spent the first few months in Fallujah, then Ar-Ramadi. As rules of engagement changed, the ability for enemy to get off first shots grew greater and greater because our freedom to "execute wrath" upon evil doers was hindered more and more. We began to loose the war from that point on.

How is war won, don't hinder the trigger pullers, the ones actually executing wrath. Let them do their purpose and the wolf will not afflict the innocent.

Today, we have ideological agendas pushed upon our youth and the result? Indoctrinated that are supporting the very wolves that American patriots are hindered from killing. They (the indoctrinated) support what is evil and while they number a few, say 10% of American citizens (not even counting illegals) , they get 98% of the media's support. The 90% who support what is good and want to do good, they get the remaining 2% of media's support.

Yeah, there are consequences, the destruction first of what is "a" family and next, once true nuclear families are destroyed, the country will soon follow in it's destruction.

Well, I appreciate your plain and open sharing of your beliefs, that is mighty white of you indeed.

That said, I guess I don't quite understand your Iraqi Freedom example,  I don't understand what you mean when you say that the ROE was changed, my understanding is that the Fallujah and Ramadi ROE were relaxed compared to the one on the card everybody got because the circumstances demanded it, but it wasn't meant to be understood as a general change to US engagement policy in general. I do not see a way in which this can be construed as the inciting incident for how the war turned in '04. There were some pretty significant changes to the composition, tactics and amount of insurgent combatants that I generally think of as of as one of the most significant changes that occured in '04. That is without even considering defections, desertions and straight up collapses of iraqi forces that were a major part of the US plan. Then there were the various political changes, propaganda campaigns and changes in civilian sentiment . I mean a lot of stuff went off the rails in '04 that really made iraq in '04 a very different proposition than Iraq in '03, so could you explain to me exactly what ROE changes you are referring to and how that and not the other things I mentioned were what incited the turn in the war?

Again I really do appreciate your openness and honestly, it mean alot to me for you to speak plainly and clearly about your beliefs.

[Rebecca]

Politics, woke/liberal/progressive ideology, they all hinder a purpose of Government as detailed in Scripture, here is the purpose that is hindered:

Romans 13: 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

As I've been stating, evil is now good and good is now evil.

Anyway, concerning purpose for war as you seem to raise, I'll give you an example. For Iraqi Freedom, I went into combat back in 2004 the rules of engagement were simple, see enemy = kill them. We didn't even let enemy get first rounds off as much as possible. My men were very alert and as such, were "hard" targets. I spent the first few months in Fallujah, then Ar-Ramadi. As rules of engagement changed, the ability for enemy to get off first shots grew greater and greater because our freedom to "execute wrath" upon evil doers was hindered more and more. We began to loose the war from that point on.

How is war won, don't hinder the trigger pullers, the ones actually executing wrath. Let them do their purpose and the wolf will not afflict the innocent.

Today, we have ideological agendas pushed upon our youth and the result? Indoctrinated that are supporting the very wolves that American patriots are hindered from killing. They (the indoctrinated) support what is evil and while they number a few, say 10% of American citizens (not even counting illegals) , they get 98% of the media's support. The 90% who support what is good and want to do good, they get the remaining 2% of media's support.

Yeah, there are consequences, the destruction first of what is "a" family and next, once true nuclear families are destroyed, the country will soon follow in it's destruction.

Amen

[Slug1]

Well, I appreciate your plain and open sharing of your beliefs, that is mighty white of you indeed.

That said, I guess I don't quite understand your Iraqi Freedom example,  I don't understand what you mean when you say that the ROE was changed, my understanding is that the Fallujah and Ramadi ROE were relaxed compared to the one on the card everybody got because the circumstances demanded it, but it wasn't meant to be understood as a general change to US engagement policy in general. I do not see a way in which this can be construed as the inciting incident for how the war turned in '04. There were some pretty significant changes to the composition, tactics and amount of insurgent combatants that I generally think of as of as one of the most significant changes that occured in '04. That is without even considering defections, desertions and straight up collapses of iraqi forces that were a major part of the US plan. Then there were the various political changes, propaganda campaigns and changes in civilian sentiment . I mean a lot of stuff went off the rails in '04 that really made iraq in '04 a very different proposition than Iraq in '03, so could you explain to me exactly what ROE changes you are referring to and how that and not the other things I mentioned were what incited the turn in the war?

Again I really do appreciate your openness and honestly, it mean alot to me for you to speak plainly and clearly about your beliefs.

I will clarify something I said. I did say 2004, plus my mention of a turn in loosing the war. This was actually in 2005, tour being a year long. About mid way through that 12 month deployment (in 2005), the ROE changed and in simple terms, we had to be shot at before we could openly engage. For the trigger puller this meant, in all simplest terms, we were on the defense, not the offense.

A defensive posture never wins a kinetic war.

[RabbiKnife]

A defensive posture never wins and war—- kinetic, cultural, political, or spiritual.

Defensive positions are stationary targets.

[Rebecca]

We see this same defensive structure in many Christians today. 
 Worried about pushing the gospel
 Waiting for the opening
 Not wanting to offend
 Not being equipped with the whole armor
 Waiting for a 'word' from the Lord   

 Much in the Scriptures is written as military offense.

Eph 6:12  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 
Eph 6:13  Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 
Eph 6:14  Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 
Eph 6:15  And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 

[Athanasius]

Christians are plenty on the offence, just in the wrong places and for the wrong things.

I mean, I could walk into a church about 10 minutes away and those within would have no issue pushing the gospel immediately, no waiting, no concern for offending, and clearly thinking they're fully equipped and have indeed heard from the Lord. Meh.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Well, I appreciate your plain and open sharing of your beliefs, that is mighty white of you indeed.

That said, I guess I don't quite understand your Iraqi Freedom example,  I don't understand what you mean when you say that the ROE was changed, my understanding is that the Fallujah and Ramadi ROE were relaxed compared to the one on the card everybody got because the circumstances demanded it, but it wasn't meant to be understood as a general change to US engagement policy in general. I do not see a way in which this can be construed as the inciting incident for how the war turned in '04. There were some pretty significant changes to the composition, tactics and amount of insurgent combatants that I generally think of as of as one of the most significant changes that occured in '04. That is without even considering defections, desertions and straight up collapses of iraqi forces that were a major part of the US plan. Then there were the various political changes, propaganda campaigns and changes in civilian sentiment . I mean a lot of stuff went off the rails in '04 that really made iraq in '04 a very different proposition than Iraq in '03, so could you explain to me exactly what ROE changes you are referring to and how that and not the other things I mentioned were what incited the turn in the war?

Again I really do appreciate your openness and honestly, it mean alot to me for you to speak plainly and clearly about your beliefs.

I will clarify something I said. I did say 2004, plus my mention of a turn in loosing the war. This was actually in 2005, tour being a year long. About mid way through that 12 month deployment (in 2005), the ROE changed and in simple terms, we had to be shot at before we could openly engage. For the trigger puller this meant, in all simplest terms, we were on the defense, not the offense.

A defensive posture never wins a kinetic war.

understandable it was like 20 years ago, and i'd empathize if this is something you rarely think about in these terms much less talk about in detail. however this clarification actually makes what you are saying even less clear to me. I'd really rather you didn't simplify this for me because as stated I do not understand what ROE change you are referring to.
You didn't give me an exact timeline, but going from what you said It made sense that the significant and pivotal first battles of Fallujah and Ramadi were the battles you were referring to. The ROE for those engagements were not to my knowledge ever generalized out to all US forces even though they are what I consider a best fit for the kind of ROE you are asserting. It is difficult for me to tell of you are considering ROE inside and outside of those battles as a change or if you are referring to some actual change to general ROE issued to all forces in country...or if you are referring to some clarification on what constitutes threat identification that was fundamentally different than it previously was. I genuinely do not understand what you are talking about when you refer to changes to ROE or how that was delivered and to whom. More detail would be useful to my understanding of the point you are trying to make. Additionally I would love some context for why you think that it was whatever this change to ROE  that was the main factor in the turn of the war and not the many many other things that went wrong in '04. I truly cannot understand why your position is your position, like it legit doesn't make sense to me in so many ways, It's not even that I disagree with you, I don't even understand it enough to agree or disagree, but I would really like to hear you out and see what you are saying.

[Slug1]

Well, I appreciate your plain and open sharing of your beliefs, that is mighty white of you indeed.

That said, I guess I don't quite understand your Iraqi Freedom example,  I don't understand what you mean when you say that the ROE was changed, my understanding is that the Fallujah and Ramadi ROE were relaxed compared to the one on the card everybody got because the circumstances demanded it, but it wasn't meant to be understood as a general change to US engagement policy in general. I do not see a way in which this can be construed as the inciting incident for how the war turned in '04. There were some pretty significant changes to the composition, tactics and amount of insurgent combatants that I generally think of as of as one of the most significant changes that occured in '04. That is without even considering defections, desertions and straight up collapses of iraqi forces that were a major part of the US plan. Then there were the various political changes, propaganda campaigns and changes in civilian sentiment . I mean a lot of stuff went off the rails in '04 that really made iraq in '04 a very different proposition than Iraq in '03, so could you explain to me exactly what ROE changes you are referring to and how that and not the other things I mentioned were what incited the turn in the war?

Again I really do appreciate your openness and honestly, it mean alot to me for you to speak plainly and clearly about your beliefs.

I will clarify something I said. I did say 2004, plus my mention of a turn in loosing the war. This was actually in 2005, tour being a year long. About mid way through that 12 month deployment (in 2005), the ROE changed and in simple terms, we had to be shot at before we could openly engage. For the trigger puller this meant, in all simplest terms, we were on the defense, not the offense.

A defensive posture never wins a kinetic war.

understandable it was like 20 years ago, and i'd empathize if this is something you rarely think about in these terms much less talk about in detail. however this clarification actually makes what you are saying even less clear to me. I'd really rather you didn't simplify this for me because as stated I do not understand what ROE change you are referring to.
You didn't give me an exact timeline, but going from what you said It made sense that the significant and pivotal first battles of Fallujah and Ramadi were the battles you were referring to. The ROE for those engagements were not to my knowledge ever generalized out to all US forces even though they are what I consider a best fit for the kind of ROE you are asserting. It is difficult for me to tell of you are considering ROE inside and outside of those battles as a change or if you are referring to some actual change to general ROE issued to all forces in country...or if you are referring to some clarification on what constitutes threat identification that was fundamentally different than it previously was. I genuinely do not understand what you are talking about when you refer to changes to ROE or how that was delivered and to whom. More detail would be useful to my understanding of the point you are trying to make. Additionally I would love some context for why you think that it was whatever this change to ROE  that was the main factor in the turn of the war and not the many many other things that went wrong in '04. I truly cannot understand why your position is your position, like it legit doesn't make sense to me in so many ways, It's not even that I disagree with you, I don't even understand it enough to agree or disagree, but I would really like to hear you out and see what you are saying.

Honestly, I don't feel I can achieve any explanation that will strive enough to meet your analyzation.

genuinely do not understand what you are talking about when you refer to changes to ROE or how that was delivered and to whom.

The ROE when we got to Iraq was, if you see a threat, eliminate it. We were effective in ensuring what was threatening didn't even get a chance to shoot first. About 6 months later (2005 now), a threat had to shoot at you before you could engage. Now of course when we were on a raid, the ROE was back to shoot first.

I was a platoon sergeant responsible for all my men, whether I was on mission with them, or not.

Whom changed the ROE, in my opinion, some tool with a or a couple stars on their shoulder being pressured to appease political pressures threatening to withhold more stars. I'm a grunt, I face the enemy, I see who I'm shooting at (even when they are shooting at me) or calling in indirect onto, etc. So when I'm told to dull the edge of my combat readiness in closing with and destroying the enemy, I'm not concerned with the reasons. I have to make a choice to allow my men to be in greater danger, or inform them to kill all enemy and if questioned, I'll deal with it.

Analyze all you want, be confused, doesn't matter to me.

[Slug1]

A defensive posture never wins and war—- kinetic, cultural, political, or spiritual.

Defensive positions are stationary targets.

Very true. For so many today, war is waged only with words but no action. Promises, but no seeing a promise through. To much appeasement that shifts as consequences are reaped. I saw a headline this morning about border security requesting 1B to help and based on the title, President Biden says they're getting more than what they ask for. Imagine if that 1B was requested 6+ months ago? Border security would be ignored.

[Slug1]

Christians are plenty on the offence, just in the wrong places and for the wrong things.

I mean, I could walk into a church about 10 minutes away and those within would have no issue pushing the gospel immediately, no waiting, no concern for offending, and clearly thinking they're fully equipped and have indeed heard from the Lord. Meh.

It does seem that discipleship is missing a key fact, that the harvest field is "outside" the walls of the building.

[Slug1]

We see this same defensive structure in many Christians today. 
 Worried about pushing the gospel
 Waiting for the opening
 Not wanting to offend
 Not being equipped with the whole armor
 Waiting for a 'word' from the Lord   

 Much in the Scriptures is written as military offense.

Eph 6:12  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Eph 6:13  Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14  Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
Eph 6:15  And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

The Gospel and Spiritual Warfare... yes, it is a battle and so little light is piercing darkness due to a great lack of faith filled discipleship.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Well, I appreciate your plain and open sharing of your beliefs, that is mighty white of you indeed.

That said, I guess I don't quite understand your Iraqi Freedom example,  I don't understand what you mean when you say that the ROE was changed, my understanding is that the Fallujah and Ramadi ROE were relaxed compared to the one on the card everybody got because the circumstances demanded it, but it wasn't meant to be understood as a general change to US engagement policy in general. I do not see a way in which this can be construed as the inciting incident for how the war turned in '04. There were some pretty significant changes to the composition, tactics and amount of insurgent combatants that I generally think of as of as one of the most significant changes that occured in '04. That is without even considering defections, desertions and straight up collapses of iraqi forces that were a major part of the US plan. Then there were the various political changes, propaganda campaigns and changes in civilian sentiment . I mean a lot of stuff went off the rails in '04 that really made iraq in '04 a very different proposition than Iraq in '03, so could you explain to me exactly what ROE changes you are referring to and how that and not the other things I mentioned were what incited the turn in the war?

Again I really do appreciate your openness and honestly, it mean alot to me for you to speak plainly and clearly about your beliefs.

I will clarify something I said. I did say 2004, plus my mention of a turn in loosing the war. This was actually in 2005, tour being a year long. About mid way through that 12 month deployment (in 2005), the ROE changed and in simple terms, we had to be shot at before we could openly engage. For the trigger puller this meant, in all simplest terms, we were on the defense, not the offense.

A defensive posture never wins a kinetic war.

understandable it was like 20 years ago, and i'd empathize if this is something you rarely think about in these terms much less talk about in detail. however this clarification actually makes what you are saying even less clear to me. I'd really rather you didn't simplify this for me because as stated I do not understand what ROE change you are referring to.
You didn't give me an exact timeline, but going from what you said It made sense that the significant and pivotal first battles of Fallujah and Ramadi were the battles you were referring to. The ROE for those engagements were not to my knowledge ever generalized out to all US forces even though they are what I consider a best fit for the kind of ROE you are asserting. It is difficult for me to tell of you are considering ROE inside and outside of those battles as a change or if you are referring to some actual change to general ROE issued to all forces in country...or if you are referring to some clarification on what constitutes threat identification that was fundamentally different than it previously was. I genuinely do not understand what you are talking about when you refer to changes to ROE or how that was delivered and to whom. More detail would be useful to my understanding of the point you are trying to make. Additionally I would love some context for why you think that it was whatever this change to ROE  that was the main factor in the turn of the war and not the many many other things that went wrong in '04. I truly cannot understand why your position is your position, like it legit doesn't make sense to me in so many ways, It's not even that I disagree with you, I don't even understand it enough to agree or disagree, but I would really like to hear you out and see what you are saying.

Honestly, I don't feel I can achieve any explanation that will strive enough to meet your analyzation.

genuinely do not understand what you are talking about when you refer to changes to ROE or how that was delivered and to whom.

The ROE when we got to Iraq was, if you see a threat, eliminate it. We were effective in ensuring what was threatening didn't even get a chance to shoot first. About 6 months later (2005 now), a threat had to shoot at you before you could engage. Now of course when we were on a raid, the ROE was back to shoot first.

I was a platoon sergeant responsible for all my men, whether I was on mission with them, or not.

Whom changed the ROE, in my opinion, some tool with a or a couple stars on their shoulder being pressured to appease political pressures threatening to withhold more stars. I'm a grunt, I face the enemy, I see who I'm shooting at (even when they are shooting at me) or calling in indirect onto, etc. So when I'm told to dull the edge of my combat readiness in closing with and destroying the enemy, I'm not concerned with the reasons. I have to make a choice to allow my men to be in greater danger, or inform them to kill all enemy and if questioned, I'll deal with it.

Analyze all you want, be confused, doesn't matter to me.

I'm just asking for details, you brought up Iraq and ROE as an example. You asserted that the balance of the war in Iraq pivoted on a change in ROE, that is a pretty broad claim especially for the '04 -'05 fighting season. Your example, analysis and your descriptions of ROE and these changes are vague and what I can suss out or guess or assume just based on my experiences and what I know of the Iraq war frankly doesn't add up to me. Perhaps it is a little offensive or frustrating to you that I'm not simply accepting what you say or pretending for the sake of courtesy that it makes sense to me when it does not. If so i'm sorry that my style is blunt, skeptical and tediously verbose, I'm irritating, but it is who I am and I am honest in not seeing how what you've said is supposed to hang together. If you cannot or do not care to give me the unsimplified version then I completely understand and can leave it here.

[Slug1]

Well, I appreciate your plain and open sharing of your beliefs, that is mighty white of you indeed.

That said, I guess I don't quite understand your Iraqi Freedom example,  I don't understand what you mean when you say that the ROE was changed, my understanding is that the Fallujah and Ramadi ROE were relaxed compared to the one on the card everybody got because the circumstances demanded it, but it wasn't meant to be understood as a general change to US engagement policy in general. I do not see a way in which this can be construed as the inciting incident for how the war turned in '04. There were some pretty significant changes to the composition, tactics and amount of insurgent combatants that I generally think of as of as one of the most significant changes that occured in '04. That is without even considering defections, desertions and straight up collapses of iraqi forces that were a major part of the US plan. Then there were the various political changes, propaganda campaigns and changes in civilian sentiment . I mean a lot of stuff went off the rails in '04 that really made iraq in '04 a very different proposition than Iraq in '03, so could you explain to me exactly what ROE changes you are referring to and how that and not the other things I mentioned were what incited the turn in the war?

Again I really do appreciate your openness and honestly, it mean alot to me for you to speak plainly and clearly about your beliefs.

I will clarify something I said. I did say 2004, plus my mention of a turn in loosing the war. This was actually in 2005, tour being a year long. About mid way through that 12 month deployment (in 2005), the ROE changed and in simple terms, we had to be shot at before we could openly engage. For the trigger puller this meant, in all simplest terms, we were on the defense, not the offense.

A defensive posture never wins a kinetic war.

understandable it was like 20 years ago, and i'd empathize if this is something you rarely think about in these terms much less talk about in detail. however this clarification actually makes what you are saying even less clear to me. I'd really rather you didn't simplify this for me because as stated I do not understand what ROE change you are referring to.
You didn't give me an exact timeline, but going from what you said It made sense that the significant and pivotal first battles of Fallujah and Ramadi were the battles you were referring to. The ROE for those engagements were not to my knowledge ever generalized out to all US forces even though they are what I consider a best fit for the kind of ROE you are asserting. It is difficult for me to tell of you are considering ROE inside and outside of those battles as a change or if you are referring to some actual change to general ROE issued to all forces in country...or if you are referring to some clarification on what constitutes threat identification that was fundamentally different than it previously was. I genuinely do not understand what you are talking about when you refer to changes to ROE or how that was delivered and to whom. More detail would be useful to my understanding of the point you are trying to make. Additionally I would love some context for why you think that it was whatever this change to ROE  that was the main factor in the turn of the war and not the many many other things that went wrong in '04. I truly cannot understand why your position is your position, like it legit doesn't make sense to me in so many ways, It's not even that I disagree with you, I don't even understand it enough to agree or disagree, but I would really like to hear you out and see what you are saying.

Honestly, I don't feel I can achieve any explanation that will strive enough to meet your analyzation.

genuinely do not understand what you are talking about when you refer to changes to ROE or how that was delivered and to whom.

The ROE when we got to Iraq was, if you see a threat, eliminate it. We were effective in ensuring what was threatening didn't even get a chance to shoot first. About 6 months later (2005 now), a threat had to shoot at you before you could engage. Now of course when we were on a raid, the ROE was back to shoot first.

I was a platoon sergeant responsible for all my men, whether I was on mission with them, or not.

Whom changed the ROE, in my opinion, some tool with a or a couple stars on their shoulder being pressured to appease political pressures threatening to withhold more stars. I'm a grunt, I face the enemy, I see who I'm shooting at (even when they are shooting at me) or calling in indirect onto, etc. So when I'm told to dull the edge of my combat readiness in closing with and destroying the enemy, I'm not concerned with the reasons. I have to make a choice to allow my men to be in greater danger, or inform them to kill all enemy and if questioned, I'll deal with it.

Analyze all you want, be confused, doesn't matter to me.

I'm just asking for details, you brought up Iraq and ROE as an example. You asserted that the balance of the war in Iraq pivoted on a change in ROE, that is a pretty broad claim especially for the '04 -'05 fighting season. Your example, analysis and your descriptions of ROE and these changes are vague and what I can suss out or guess or assume just based on my experiences and what I know of the Iraq war frankly doesn't add up to me. Perhaps it is a little offensive or frustrating to you that I'm not simply accepting what you say or pretending for the sake of courtesy that it makes sense to me when it does not. If so i'm sorry that my style is blunt, skeptical and tediously verbose, I'm irritating, but it is who I am and I am honest in not seeing how what you've said is supposed to hang together. If you cannot or do not care to give me the unsimplified version then I completely understand and can leave it here.

When we arrived in Iraq, the ROE was clear, kill the enemy. Enemy is defined as anyone with the ability to threaten us. We see a person(s) with weapons, whether or not they are shooting at us, we engaged and eliminated the threat "before" they exhibited hostile intent. We see a person digging a hole along the road that is any of our patrol routes, we killed them, etc. We didn't even give them a chance to (quote), "exhibit hostile intent against US Forces or Coalition Forces."

Once we had to let them shoot first (as now defined, "exhibit hostile intent against us), we began losing the war.

https://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Iraq_Rules_of_Engagement_leaked

[Oscar_Kipling]

Well, I appreciate your plain and open sharing of your beliefs, that is mighty white of you indeed.

That said, I guess I don't quite understand your Iraqi Freedom example,  I don't understand what you mean when you say that the ROE was changed, my understanding is that the Fallujah and Ramadi ROE were relaxed compared to the one on the card everybody got because the circumstances demanded it, but it wasn't meant to be understood as a general change to US engagement policy in general. I do not see a way in which this can be construed as the inciting incident for how the war turned in '04. There were some pretty significant changes to the composition, tactics and amount of insurgent combatants that I generally think of as of as one of the most significant changes that occured in '04. That is without even considering defections, desertions and straight up collapses of iraqi forces that were a major part of the US plan. Then there were the various political changes, propaganda campaigns and changes in civilian sentiment . I mean a lot of stuff went off the rails in '04 that really made iraq in '04 a very different proposition than Iraq in '03, so could you explain to me exactly what ROE changes you are referring to and how that and not the other things I mentioned were what incited the turn in the war?

Again I really do appreciate your openness and honestly, it mean alot to me for you to speak plainly and clearly about your beliefs.

I will clarify something I said. I did say 2004, plus my mention of a turn in loosing the war. This was actually in 2005, tour being a year long. About mid way through that 12 month deployment (in 2005), the ROE changed and in simple terms, we had to be shot at before we could openly engage. For the trigger puller this meant, in all simplest terms, we were on the defense, not the offense.

A defensive posture never wins a kinetic war.

understandable it was like 20 years ago, and i'd empathize if this is something you rarely think about in these terms much less talk about in detail. however this clarification actually makes what you are saying even less clear to me. I'd really rather you didn't simplify this for me because as stated I do not understand what ROE change you are referring to.
You didn't give me an exact timeline, but going from what you said It made sense that the significant and pivotal first battles of Fallujah and Ramadi were the battles you were referring to. The ROE for those engagements were not to my knowledge ever generalized out to all US forces even though they are what I consider a best fit for the kind of ROE you are asserting. It is difficult for me to tell of you are considering ROE inside and outside of those battles as a change or if you are referring to some actual change to general ROE issued to all forces in country...or if you are referring to some clarification on what constitutes threat identification that was fundamentally different than it previously was. I genuinely do not understand what you are talking about when you refer to changes to ROE or how that was delivered and to whom. More detail would be useful to my understanding of the point you are trying to make. Additionally I would love some context for why you think that it was whatever this change to ROE  that was the main factor in the turn of the war and not the many many other things that went wrong in '04. I truly cannot understand why your position is your position, like it legit doesn't make sense to me in so many ways, It's not even that I disagree with you, I don't even understand it enough to agree or disagree, but I would really like to hear you out and see what you are saying.

Honestly, I don't feel I can achieve any explanation that will strive enough to meet your analyzation.

genuinely do not understand what you are talking about when you refer to changes to ROE or how that was delivered and to whom.

The ROE when we got to Iraq was, if you see a threat, eliminate it. We were effective in ensuring what was threatening didn't even get a chance to shoot first. About 6 months later (2005 now), a threat had to shoot at you before you could engage. Now of course when we were on a raid, the ROE was back to shoot first.

I was a platoon sergeant responsible for all my men, whether I was on mission with them, or not.

Whom changed the ROE, in my opinion, some tool with a or a couple stars on their shoulder being pressured to appease political pressures threatening to withhold more stars. I'm a grunt, I face the enemy, I see who I'm shooting at (even when they are shooting at me) or calling in indirect onto, etc. So when I'm told to dull the edge of my combat readiness in closing with and destroying the enemy, I'm not concerned with the reasons. I have to make a choice to allow my men to be in greater danger, or inform them to kill all enemy and if questioned, I'll deal with it.

Analyze all you want, be confused, doesn't matter to me.

I'm just asking for details, you brought up Iraq and ROE as an example. You asserted that the balance of the war in Iraq pivoted on a change in ROE, that is a pretty broad claim especially for the '04 -'05 fighting season. Your example, analysis and your descriptions of ROE and these changes are vague and what I can suss out or guess or assume just based on my experiences and what I know of the Iraq war frankly doesn't add up to me. Perhaps it is a little offensive or frustrating to you that I'm not simply accepting what you say or pretending for the sake of courtesy that it makes sense to me when it does not. If so i'm sorry that my style is blunt, skeptical and tediously verbose, I'm irritating, but it is who I am and I am honest in not seeing how what you've said is supposed to hang together. If you cannot or do not care to give me the unsimplified version then I completely understand and can leave it here.

When we arrived in Iraq, the ROE was clear, kill the enemy. Enemy is defined as anyone with the ability to threaten us. We see a person(s) with weapons, whether or not they are shooting at us, we engaged and eliminated the threat "before" they exhibited hostile intent. We see a person digging a hole along the road that is any of our patrol routes, we killed them, etc. We didn't even give them a chance to (quote), "exhibit hostile intent against US Forces or Coalition Forces."

Once we had to let them shoot first (as now defined, "exhibit hostile intent against us), we began losing the war.

https://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Iraq_Rules_of_Engagement_leaked

link doesn't work, I know wikileaks has been intermittent for years, I tried last night and again this afternoon. I am going to go ahead and respond anyway without it though.


Well, I appreciate you continuing to attempt to clarify. A few more questions, are you saying that when you arrived in country in 2004 you were directed that you had broad authority to use deadly force in any circumstances against anyone that merely had a weapon or were engaged in any activity that you deemed could conceivably be construed as an imminent or future threat and that this essentially describes the limits and character of the direction you received on any engagement while in country? Then in 2005 you received more granular direction in that your ROE included direction for "raids" and then all other activities outside of "raids". Your broad authority remained the same during "raids", but in all other circumstances you were only authorized to engage with deadly force once you were fired upon or hostility had already been initiated by an enemy combatant? And just to be clear you were neither directed, briefed or in no way was it intended that you understand that the broad authority you were given in '04 was meant to apply to any specific engagement like the battle of Fallujah for instance. Finally prior to 2005 did anyone ever introduce you to the concept of ROE that are applicable to particular engagements, duties or circumstances and not others or that that may be the case during your tour in Iraq? Again I appreciate your sticking with me for the sake of my understanding your ROE expirience in Iraq in '04-'05.

[Slug1]

link doesn't work, I know wikileaks has been intermittent for years, I tried last night and again this afternoon. I am going to go ahead and respond anyway without it though.

It was working last night when I posted. But yeah, I get the 504 gateway time out now.

Well, I appreciate you continuing to attempt to clarify. A few more questions, are you saying that when you arrived in country in 2004 you were directed that you had broad authority to use deadly force in any circumstances against anyone that merely had a weapon or were engaged in any activity that you deemed could conceivably be construed as an imminent or future threat and that this essentially describes the limits and character of the direction you received on any engagement while in country?

Yes.

Then in 2005 you received more granular direction in that your ROE included direction for "raids" and then all other activities outside of "raids". Your broad authority remained the same during "raids", but in all other circumstances you were only authorized to engage with deadly force once you were fired upon or hostility had already been initiated by an enemy combatant?

Yes

And just to be clear you were neither directed, briefed or in no way was it intended that you understand that the broad authority you were given in '04 was meant to apply to any specific engagement like the battle of Fallujah for instance.

"Battle of Fallujah" in 05, the ROE was as it was when we first arrived in 04. Maybe our disconnect is I'm talking about patrolling in and all around Fallujah from 04 to 05 on a daily basis and in the middle of a tour, the ROE changes. Plus I was located near ArRamadi when the ROE change took place. While you are focused on "a battle" in retaking of Fallujah. For that battle the ROE was clear for all us Infantry, find the enemy, destroy them, so it was as when we first arrived in Iraq, weapons were free.

Finally prior to 2005 did anyone ever introduce you to the concept of ROE that are applicable to particular engagements, duties or circumstances and not others or that that may be the case during your tour in Iraq?

While we were initially at weapons free when we first arrived in Iraq, this was only concerning clear threat. The two examples I gave may seem vague (person or persons carrying weapons, or a person digging a hole along patrol routes) but concerning the lives of my men, any threat was immediately eliminated.

Any situation that was not a threat, an example: we cordon off the N/S highway along the east side of Fallujah. Traffic is building up on the S traveling side, which is roadblocked by my LT's Bradley. I'm abreast him, to his right on the N traveling side. Our wingmen (the other two Bradleys) are facing(securing) south on the N/S lanes about 400m behind us. He does the required verbal and hand and arm signals based on the ROE but traffic begins to move toward the road block. The LT gets louder, even brings out his megaphone (which we are equipped with) to be even louder, his hand and arm signals get more animated, he even pointed his M4 at the traffic. Yet, traffic slowly moves closer. I inform the LT via the radio that I am going to do warning fire if they get within 200 meters of the front of his Bradley. They moved to that limit and I open fire with a port-firing weapon I kept with me in the turret. I fired half a magazine into the highway, all tracer rounds of 5.56 about 20 feet infront of the lead cars.

They stopped and never moved again until the cordon was complete. If they had continued to move, and a VBIED lethal blast zone is 100m (on average), then I would have taken out the front row of vehicles before they can be such a threat.

The ROE was clear and in 04, we had no problem with the ROE.

22Oct 11:39EST, that link was working.