Reply #158: CYA [View All]

[DissedByBush]

"found that the Standing Rules of Engagement (SROE) were adequate to have protected the Cole had they been followed"

CYA for those in charge. The ones writing the SROE aren't the ones who will be killed by it.

"Even Stratfor, who is shilling for the Bush admin on the Hormuz incident, acknowledges that the SROE allow for engagement of approaching vessels:"

And if they'd fired they'd be risking court martial.

"This account was never confirmed by the formal investigations of the Cole bombing and doesn't jibe with any common sense understanding of Rules of Engagement after an attack. In other words, it's total bullshit."

Yes, shooting back *after* an attack is safe to do. Little to late then, don't you think?

No, it's how our military has been for a while. For example, I personally knew a lot of soldiers who were deployed to Kosovo, interviewed dozens of others and read interviews from hundreds more. The thing they most feared was their "Don't shoot until shot at" rules of engagement. I saw an interview with a sniper in Baghdad who was told not to shoot an obvious target -- a target that later was part of an ambush that killed some of our troops. Every time an innocent is killed is a major PR victory against any US administration, even if those innocents were set up by our enemies. Therefore, they set up rules of engagement to protect the administration from embarrassment, while exposing our servicemembers to harm.

I know Bush will spin this as far as he needs to fuel his aggressive nature, but my concern is for these sailors, and any after them.