The rules of war need to change
The rules of war need to change, Israel Hayom, Dan Margalit, October 5, 2014
(Could the U.S. and her allies put effective boots on the ground, or have the boots and the nation become too multiculturally damaged to do what needs to be done? More than the rules of war needs to change.
When the U.S. responded to the Russian supplied, trained and initially led North Korean invasion on June 25, 1950, we had been at peace for only five years. We were tired and wanted peace to continue but war came to us unexpectedly; it should have been expected. Our peacetime boots were badly supplied, trained and, more often than not, led. Some but not enough officers and senior noncoms had experienced war and knew what to do. Very few in the lower enlisted ranks had or did and “bug out” became a much used phrase. The NK troops had been hardened in combat, were adequately supplied, well trained and well led. Those who did not fight were executed. They pushed us back nearly to Pusan. By mid-September, we had more better led and trained troops; they had also become very angry at the NK troops, and intense anger is a powerful force multiplier. The NK tide was reversed, for a couple of years.
Were we now to try to put green boots on the ground to do what is necessary against well trained, led and financed Islamic troops, a majority of the public would oppose it and it would be politically unpopular. Were we to put boots on the ground anyway, they would likely need to undergo lengthy and deadly immersion-style baptism by fire. There would be substantial casualties and the opposition would increase.
Should we do it anyway if only the rules of engagement change? Can we, or is that now a fantasy? — DM)
The enlightened world must pummel Islamic State into a pulp. This cancer needs to be excised, leaving no metastases behind. If the world is soft, the way most greasy, petit-bourgeois masses tend to be, it will soon learn that these horrifying decapitations are in fact prompting thousands of new volunteers to join the ranks of Islamic State. A toothless war will come back to bite us like a boomerang. It will weaken the good guys.
*****************
It was clear from the very beginning that the cruelest most terrible terror organization since the Khmer Rouge would not fold in the face of a flimsy, ill-timed attack by a few American, British and French jets. The possible addition of Australia, Canada and some Arab states — it is not yet clear where Turkey stands — to the coalition will not scare them either. On the contrary — Islamic State group draws its power from its image of extremist outlaws who will never compromise. At this point, refusing to surrender, the Islamic State group had no choice but to decapitate another innocent British national — Alan Henning — who only wanted to do good in this world.
The same fate awaits the next Westerner in line — an American by the name of Peter Kassig, who even converted to Islam to try to save his own life. But the murderers will not let up. Jihadi John is already sharpening his knife.
All this is happening because Islamic State is not an organization that can be defeated with slow, uncertain, limited action. It cannot be defeated without “boots on the ground.” It is imperative to hit them with force; with waves of growing intensity. They must be attacked continuously, without breaks, without cease-fires and with the utmost determination.
The day of Yom Kippur, regardless of the Jewish holiday, was a turning point in the war against Islamic State. They were bombed, yet immediately resumed decapitating prisoners. The reality has become one of walking on the edge; of all or nothing-style fighting. There can be no compromise; there can be no cease-fire. You are either with us or against us.
The enlightened world must pummel Islamic State into a pulp. This cancer needs to be excised, leaving no metastases behind. If the world is soft, the way most greasy, petit-bourgeois masses tend to be, it will soon learn that these horrifying decapitations are in fact prompting thousands of new volunteers to join the ranks of Islamic State. A toothless war will come back to bite us like a boomerang. It will weaken the good guys.
It will not be an easy victory. In the West, there are those who are afraid and who prefer to shut their eyes tight as part of a head-in-the-sand policy. There are those who are truly indifferent. There are bleeding hearts who find partial justification for the Islamist decapitations. One of them wrote an article blaming the Western violence for the rise of Islamic State. Others, at the U.N. of course, wondered whether bombing Islamic State targets would be in line with international law, or whether it could be a violation of Syrian sovereignty.
The hypocrisy is still benefiting the terrorists’ side. In our regional conflict, Hamas fires rockets indiscriminately at Jewish populations without prior warning, and the IDF, before retaliating (with much more force, granted), warns every Gazan to leave their homes to avoid getting hurt. Who gets blamed by the U.N.? Of course it is Israel, which warns the enemy, and not Hamas which fires in every civilian direction.
If, however, the familiar indifference doesn’t trip up the West, Islamic State will be vanquished and forever disgraced. Furthermore, the rules of war and international law will be amended in order to allow democracies to effectively defend themselves. The existing rules are good for guiding conflicts between enlightened nations. But these days, with Islamic State and its ilk dominating the scene, the enlightened world will have to allow itself to fight in a more resolute, effective manner if it doesn’t want to be defeated by Islamic terror.
At the end of the tunnel, a significant overhaul of the rules of war awaits.
Explore posts in the same categories: Iraq, Islamic State, Islamism, Rules of war, Syria, U.S. MilitaryTags: boots on the ground, Iraq, Islamic State, Rules of war, Syria, U.S. military
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
WarSclerotic 
October 5, 2014 at 6:59 PM
Will America survive the Obama regime?
October 5, 2014 at 7:20 PM
Better , will the world survive the black hand ?
October 5, 2014 at 11:58 PM
“. . . The NK troops had been hardened in combat, were adequately supplied, well trained and well led. . . .”
‘Hardened’ in which combat? ‘Adequately supplied’? ‘Well trained’? ‘Well led’?
By whose measure?
What a crock! Kim’s troops enjoyed initial successes because of numbers, superior armor (T-34s were better than Shermans), surprise, momentum, and a U.S. opponent that had grown flabby during MacArthur’s proconsul rule in Japan.
Those advantages changed, rapidly so after Inchon. Chased to the Yalu, Kim might have capitulated were it not for MacArthur’s ego and Mao’s intervention.
October 6, 2014 at 12:25 AM
They had been hardened and trained, and had become accustomed to harsh discipline — including execution of the disobedient — during years of combat with Japan and then with the Chinese Nationalists — whom they had forced off the mainland to Formosa, now Taiwan.
Few of our lower enlisted ranks had experienced war. Our forces — at first garrison troops from our occupation of Japan — were initially ill-trained and ill-supplied for war and lacked even the equipment to damage the North Korean T-34 tanks, supplied by Russia, significantly. That came later, along with tanks at least comparable to the T-34s. Even three months is a very long time in such circumstances. Fortunately, the situation improved substantially in mid-September contemporaneously with the Inchon invasion. Later, in 1953, things got much worse.
Please read This Kind of War, written by T.R. Fehrenback in 1963. He was an American officer on the ground, fighting in Korea. Even lacking access to pertinent Russian and Chinese documents, which did not become available until the “cold war” had ended, he did a very good job of reporting the ground war.