Outrageous Doesn't Begin to Say It...

Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, in their Inside the Ring column in the January 26th edition of The Washington Times, report that:

“Defense officials tell us one of the rules of engagement for U.S. combat troops in Iraq is vague and written by lawyers with little or no combat experience. The result is troops are at risk of getting killed in action because of military lawyers’ penchant for ambiguity.

One troubling rule that is among several printed on the card given to troops going into combat is “use minimum force necessary to decisively eliminate the threat.” It is viewed by many in the military as ambiguous and confusing.

“Does it mean you are obligated to wrestle with a threat rather than shoot him or her?”…How about approaching and/or wrestling with a threat who, it turns out, is a homicide bomber?” one defense official asked.

Bottom line: There is no way in law to define “minimum deadly force,” the official said.

It is not known whether the imprecise rules directly led to the deaths in action of U.S. troops in Iraq, but some say it is likely because the rules are overly cautious and vague, an apparent outgrowth of destructive political correctness applied to war.”

This is an outrage almost too great for words. Any general officer involved in this decision making process should be immediately cashiered. Any civilian defense official involved in this debacle should be immediately dismissed. Any political appointee involved should be forced to resign. Any elected official, including the Commander in Chief, that was complicit in this failure of duty to our troops must be roundly and soundly excoriated.

We ask of our troops their “last full measure of devotion.” The least we can do in return is to provide them with reasonable and realistic Rules of Engagement; ROE’s designed with their safety in mind, not the enemies’.

Cross-posted at http://www.laconicblog.blogspot.com