12,399 views

, 8 tweets, 2 min read

In 2017, I wrote about the myth of "fighting terrorism" w/ Russia -- something we can't do b/c we don't share rules of engagement. Our RoE are designed to *protect* our troops; theirs, not.

This has been on my mind after POTUS pardons for war criminals./1
politico.com/magazine/story…

There's this faux tough guy talking point about "bringing jihad to the jihadis" -- the embrace of scorched earth tactics, and RoE and operating environment be damned.

The problem is -- it doesn't work. "We could win of we could fight like they fight" is top to bottom false. /2

There are hundreds, thousands, of Russian soldiers who have died unacknowledged in Ukraine, in Syria because they were fighting under rules of engagement that made them disposable. The rows & rows of unmarked graves just across the border from Ukraine tell that truth. /3

That's what non-restrictive RoE looks like. Unaccounted dead, not glorious dead. Guys who don't know how to come home because they were never meant to. /4

Yes, shit happens in war; the way we build soldiers is precisely to equip them to deal with the awful things they have to do in the context of lawfully executed combat.

That doesn't include hunting someone down, killing them, burying them, going back to exume and burn them./5

Perhaps we've become accustomed to the idea of a cheapened presidency. I don't think we want to become accustomed to a cheapened officer core. /6

I know these are topics we're supposed to leave to active duty/vets to discuss.

And FWIW, every SF and regular army guy I work with is appalled because the pardons have made the work we do a lot harder.

But it's too important to civilian America to leave this aside. /7