 | |
| U.S. Special Forces Operator in Afghanistan |
However, these two conflicts were fought about on the homeland. Many people didn't want to meet the major violence of 9/11 with a massive military strike, but others did. These same sparks flew when the Iraq war began, with people on both sides of the argument. The war in Iraq in itself has caused major controversy, with scandals such as the Abu Ghiraib making major headlines. But regardless of whether or not you agree with the politics of the wars themselves, many people have stood behind the troops that have served.
Now, when I post this article, I view both conflicts as an extremely complicated affair. Ever since the begin of the Iraq war, political pundits on the left and right were afraid of these wars becoming the next Vietnam. However, the problem with this logic comes from the fact that we aren't truly fighting a country. When fighting a country, certain rules apply to both sides of the conflict. These rules are simple:
1. Don't fire unless fired upon
2. Civilians are never to be used to shield yourself from fire
3. Civilians are to be protected at ALL costs
4. If civilians are present in the field of battle, you must keep civilian casualties to a minimum
If the United States were at war with an actual country, then these rules would not be a problem. However, if you talk to any soldier who has seen combat in the current conflict, you'll find out that the other side isn't playing by these rules. Every one of these rules has been broken by the other side time and time again. And yes, I will admit, there have been violations by our side as well. Generally however, U.S. soldiers are doing their best to try and prevent this from happening, but it's not an easy task to do.
At the same time, while many people here at home support our troops, many of our citizens protest them. They target the families of dead soldiers, target military bases, saying that the troops are criminals, that they're evil, and this war shouldn't exist. If I were a soldier, I would honestly be offended by those people, since it would be my sworn duty to protect.
However, with all the rules our soldiers follow, our esteemed President has decided that our soldiers need to have more rules placed upon them. Designated as 'Protocol 1 Additional' of the Geneva Convention (Added in 1977), the protocol was rejected by President Reagan because of the nature of the Protocol, saying that the agreement was 'fundamentally and irreconcilably flawed.'
The major reason for this is because a portion of Protocol 1 Additional just restates the basic rules of war about civilians. Rules that U.S. Soldiers are bound to follow without question. However, many sections of the protocol state new rules. After reading the entire protocol, many of the provisions go against a lot of the ways that the U.S. can gain intelligence on the ground, while others bar the armed forces from doing specific counter attacks when the situation calls for it.
For example, Article 56, Section 1 states:
"Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dikes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population."
This means that, say the insurgency manages to take an Oil Refinery or a Dam in Iraq, the United States is barred from taking it back for any reason if the location is near any civilians and their homes. Evacuations would be necessary to even mount this kind of assault. However, evacuations take time, allowing the forces inside the refinery to root themselves down further or put in more potentially fatal security measures. The act of surprise in this instance wouldn't be able to work.
Effectively, Protocol 1 Additional ties the hands of a soldier behind his back even farther. It backs them into an impossible corner, putting them in the potential position of either:
A. Safely reaching and securing the objective
B. Making the environment almost completely civilian free and safe for all non-military personnel, but allow the enemy force better time to prepare.
As a soldier, this choice is already tough enough, especially given the climate in the region. Enemy combatants do not have uniforms, set ages, follow any code. An attack could come from a 60 year old with a bomb strapped to his chest, or a 13 year old who can barely hold an AK-47. Where do you define the difference between combatant and civilian at this point? And where does our government?
At the same time, we're in a country that is so heavily based in religion. The enemies that we're fighting use their religion as the reason in which they fight. Using that religion as shield isn't beyond them. Using a Mosque as a staging area for attacks has been seen before, especially in the media. While it has painted an unfair light on the Muslim religion, the extremist insurgency who is fighting doesn't care what we see at home, because every effort they're using is demoralizing us back at home.
At this point, President Obama has lost all of my respect and then some. Even though I am a conservative person, I watched Obama's campaign with interest. I didn't like idea of McCain as candidate. Quite honestly he wasn't really a candidate at all in my opinion. His campaign was weak, his ideals were middle of the road, and a lot of what he was saying was the same as Obama. Obama just put it out there more.
At the start of his Presidency, Obama declared that he would have U.S. fighting forces out of Afghanistan by 2015, and had General Petraeus back him on this front. However, with signing this Protocol into practice, he most likely has effectively killed this plan. This, combined with the nightmare of the health care bill, and the refusal to step in around the globe when rebel forces are literally begging for it, as well as his ill response to the Japan tsunami that happened recently, I can no longer respect him as a person or the office of the Presidency while he holds it.
In my opinion, he is on a speedy conquest to build his own legacy since his first term in office is going as smoothly as taking a drive on the moon at 70 miles per hour. Honestly, i am appalled at some of the things he is doing, and I cannot wait for them to stop.
However, I urge this to you all. Support our troops. If you see a soldier, whether they be retired or still active, give them a smile and a nod. Even thank them for their sacrifice. The person you're looking at may not have been injured or killed, but they sacrificed time away from their family and friends, they put their lives on the line, they stood on the front lines that our politicians have deemed necessary to fight for. You may not agree that we need to be there, but they went into a recruiting office, they signed up to do what they thought was right. The thing that you have to understand, is that what they thought was right was making sure that you slept comfortably in your bed that night, while they held an M4 out the window of a flimsy humvee, hoping that the most exciting thing that would happen is that they would walk back through their barracks gates. Remember, they are only employees that can't willingly quit their job.
Sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-03-17-column17_ST1_N.htm
http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm
http://pakistanisforpeace.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/u-s-strategy-in-afghanistan-may-involve-greater-use-of-special-operations-forces/
http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/image/id/38061/
http://www.upi.com/enl-win/ed09cfb2eea210837469804a2ff38fde/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter/465089161/
No comments:
Post a Comment