In her article “Questions No One Wants to Ask Gen. McChrystal” (Townhall.com, December 11, 2008) Diana West lists some of the Rules of Engagement (ROE) that our men and women must obey in fighting the enemy or face the possibility of imprisonment when they return to the United States. According to Ms West’s article these rules include the following:

1.      No night searches

2.      Villagers must be warned prior to searches

3.      Searches must account for the Islamic attitude towards women

4.      Soldiers must not fire on the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire on them first

5.      Soldiers may fire on a person PLACING a mine, but not on one walking away from placing a mine. 

6.      She indicates there are others such as no air support for ground troops except in case of “emergency.” This rule already led to the deaths of some soldiers who had radioed for help, which was denied.)

As a person who has had six months “up front” in combat including four months of continuous front line duty as an infantry radio scout, let me respond to this. 

First, almost all of my work was done at night. That was when the enemy was up and about. Our most vicious battles, such as Outpost Harry which cost us 2300 casualties, were also at night.

Secondly, the idiocy of telling the enemy, who work from villages, when the village is to be searched is beyond understanding. Naturally the Muslim jihadists, who wear no uniforms, are going to take time to hide their weapons and be friendly during those searches. They might even be able to retrieve their weapons and kill a few of our men as they are leaving.

Third, caring for the Islamic attitude towards women is a statement which would border on the hilarious if it didn’t reflect such profound ignorance. My first knowledge of this attitude came from a Master Sergeant whom I had learned to respect when he was coach of Andrew’s t-ball team. He was sent on a mission to Iraq and I met him on his return. I asked him what it was like. He responded, “They are a really beautiful people, but women are strictly second class citizens. They use women and girls to clear mine fields because women are less valued than men.” (Anyone who doubts that attitude should read Surah (Chapter) two, line 288 of the Qu′ran.) For men in combat, this means that these Islamic fighters are quite willing to have women conceal weapons and explosives under their burkas or hide behind women while shooting at them. (Incidentally, the North Koreans used women in this fashion in the Korean Conflict, but we weren’t prevented from shooting them.)

Fourth, to not shoot at an enemy fighter unless that fighter is preparing to shoot at them. Any soldier stupid enough to obey this is giving the enemy the first shot. Of course if he doesn’t obey, and lives, Obama’s generals will send him to Leavenworth prison.

Fifth, this means that anyone who is spotted placing a mine only has to turn his (or her) back and begin walking away to be safe. 

When combat soldiers are not working, all they are is tired, but when they are working they live by combat or die. 

On the positive side, I never knew of any combat soldiers who harmed peaceful civilians. In fact, I knew of those who tried to help the innocent. Red Curry, who was a top combat scout, actually cried when he had to carry a sick young woman to safety. Our supply room took in an elderly, wandering, civilian man; gave him a bed and provided him with food. Our cook was criticized by a colonel new to Korea for feeding stray children. A friend who was present said he looked at the colonel and replied, “Sir, as long as I am in charge of this mess hall, I’ll feed children.” The colonel left. The same could not be said for some rear echelon soldiers. I heard some of these non-combat men brag about how they had abused innocents in the rear area, but, fortunately, there weren’t too many of them. Good thing for us they were in the back, they wouldn’t have had what it takes to face armed men interested in killing them. 

To return however, to the “Rules of Engagement” promoted by our current leadership, anyone who has a loved one going there should get an extra hug from them.  Their work is being made suicidal.  They are much less likely to return alive than they would be under intelligent leadership.   

Sorry if this is badly written. It is an emotional topic for me.

Where was her common sense? What were her morals? 

When people think of the word “morals” they normally, at least in the United States, think in terms of rules of behavior based on the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus. But there are other sets of morals.

For many, money is their idol and constitutes their moral base. The more money, or possessions indicating money, that you have, the better you are as a person. At an easy level, consider some of recent revelations of the bonuses paid to themselves by leading industrialists. Less easy, as the news media avoid the subject, consider the leaks of how some of our leading politicians, such as Senator Dodd, have acquired wealth and privilege, while doing “good” for the nation.  I read one report that claimed that AIG distributed over eight million dollars to Congressmen, half to Democrats and half to Republicans.  Obama was reported as one of the recipients. Money is moral.

For others, power is what is important. At its most generally despised level, we find spouse abuse. Typically reported among the lower classes, abusers find righteousness in the ability to dominate, to abuse, their spouses. But it is not limited to the poor. While employed at WashingtonUniversity I did industrial consulting. The owner of a trucking firm telephoned and reported that his firm was losing millions of dollars every year. (He was a member of an extremely wealthy family.) We set up a battery of tests to evaluate his entire workforce. My assistant, an attractive young woman, did the testing. She reported to me that he offered to double any salary the University was paying her, but that she would never work for him. She said he treated his employees horribly: shouting and swearing at them. Employees also did horribly on tests. None of his mechanics scored better than the bottom ten percent of the population on the Bennett Mechanical Aptitude test, none of his secretaries could type faster than twenty words a minute. No wonder his trucks were always broken down and he was losing money. But he had power. (For the interested, we discussed this in the office and my boss, King Wientge, an experienced and accomplished psycholgist, said that he had best report the results, not me, inexperienced in such problems. He later told me that he had a very frank talk with the man, whose first response was to say he would fire everyone.)

Then there are those for whom notoriety is all important. If you make the front pages, then you are good. Watch the faces of some of the criminals, including murderers, during their trials. They are important: they are on television and they enjoy it. But you don’t have to be a criminal to enjoy prestige. Consider all the “beautiful” actors and actresses. As long as they are on the front page of the tabloids and the news media, life is good – any publicity is good publicity – and they receive it by exposing their bodies. For many, that is all they have to offer.

It appears that Jessie belonged to this group. Obviously, she valued her looks and her body. To expose what she appears to have valued most, could have led to the nude picture of herself that she sent to her boyfriend. His bragging rights led him to distribute it, sort of a “see what I have” approach. Then Jessica discovered, to her horror, that such fame could lead to unpleasant consequences. She was unable to tolerate this, and hung herself. But, how much of her behavior is a result of her home life? Time spent with parents, what they support and praise, is important.

Once, while teaching and doing volunteer work at the mental health clinic, a mother and her ten-year-old son came to my office and demanded my time. She said she had heard that I did free work and she needed help for her son, who was failing in school. Not only did she irritate me, I was in a hurry. The result was calculated cruelty on my part. I looked at the boy and asked, “When did you last read a book?” “I don’t.” “Do you go to the library?” “No.” “Do you have a library card?” “No.” “When was the last time your parents complimented you and for what.” After a long pause, he said, “Last summer, for riding my bicycle.” I turned to the mother and asked her, “Why should he care about school if you don’t?” 

Jessica’s mother is now starting, or attempting to start, a campaign to get the government to control the Internet and cell phones, I suppose to install government morals. There are cruel questions I would ask her. How much time did you and your husband spend with Jessie while she was growing up? Did you go camping together, or to plays or concerts together? Or were you and your husband busy with work, so as to provide measurable luxuries rather than that of companionship? Did you send Jessie to Sunday School or attend church with her, church where Ten Commandment type morals are taught? If not, who taught her the values and morals she learned?

I’m sorry, for Jessie’s mother, but the federal government in WashingtonDC cannot raise a child. It takes a family to raise a child to competent and happy adulthood, typically it is easiest (It is never easy!) in a family which includes both a mother and a father. It is from family that children learn what is important, what is moral.