Tweet
I'm opposed. The AL Commander states why this is a bad idea, very well in my opinion.
We all support different things, the AL is one thing I support whole heartedly. I've never disagreed with any of their views. 'cept how the support and then bash the VA hospital in the same breath.
I thought this was an interesting topic after that one video about the death squad or whatever. Specifically FF's view on things that some thought was "out there." It's hard to be in an environment where nearly everyone probably wants to destroy you - and then show massive amounts of restraint. You'll probably just end up dead.
We all support different things, the AL is one thing I support whole heartedly. I've never disagreed with any of their views. 'cept how the support and then bash the VA hospital in the same breath.
I thought this was an interesting topic after that one video about the death squad or whatever. Specifically FF's view on things that some thought was "out there." It's hard to be in an environment where nearly everyone probably wants to destroy you - and then show massive amounts of restraint. You'll probably just end up dead.
Calling a proposal to award U.S. troops medals for holding fire in a war zone "misguided," American Legion National Commander Clarence Hill voiced concern that overly restrictive rules of engagement would ultimately cost lives.
"Nobody likes to see innocent civilians killed in a war zone but the blame for these tragedies lies with the terrorists who caused the war in the first place," Hill said. "The proposal to award medals for holding fire is troubling because it is symptomatic of a growing culture in the military that will punish troops for making split-second decisions while they are expected to defend themselves and their comrades. This proposal is an insult to our men and women in combat who already do an extraordinary job of exercising restraint. Too much restraint will get our own people killed."
Hill also worried that rewarding those who don't use force sends the wrong message to those that do. "Vietnam veterans were outrageously slandered as ‘babykillers,'" he said. "This was tragic because the overwhelming majority of those who served there tried to prevent innocent casualties. Now, by awarding those who supposedly practice restraint, we would be implying that our heroes who have to fire their weapons are somehow failing in their mission or coming up short. It's a bad idea, and the Pentagon should kill it."
"Nobody likes to see innocent civilians killed in a war zone but the blame for these tragedies lies with the terrorists who caused the war in the first place," Hill said. "The proposal to award medals for holding fire is troubling because it is symptomatic of a growing culture in the military that will punish troops for making split-second decisions while they are expected to defend themselves and their comrades. This proposal is an insult to our men and women in combat who already do an extraordinary job of exercising restraint. Too much restraint will get our own people killed."
Hill also worried that rewarding those who don't use force sends the wrong message to those that do. "Vietnam veterans were outrageously slandered as ‘babykillers,'" he said. "This was tragic because the overwhelming majority of those who served there tried to prevent innocent casualties. Now, by awarding those who supposedly practice restraint, we would be implying that our heroes who have to fire their weapons are somehow failing in their mission or coming up short. It's a bad idea, and the Pentagon should kill it."
Comment