4 ms·
The DoD has vocally stated their intent to maximize death. They have explicit stated their disgust for the rules of engagement.
by wobblyasp 7mo ago
The DoD has vocally stated their intent to maximize death. They have explicit stated their disgust for the rules of engagement.
- gruez 7mo ago>The DoD has vocally stated their intent to maximize death. Source?
- wavemode 7mo agoNY Times article on the rhetoric: https://archive.ph/In52a https://archive.ph/In52a
- gruez 7mo agoBased on a quick skim it looks like he's talking about combatant deaths? I suppose it's technically supports the claim of "maximize death", but in the broader context of civilian casualties it's a bit misleading. Also, isnt the whole point of a military to kill enemy combatants? It might not be an explicit objective, and there are limits to what kinds of killings are allowed, but at the same time I don't think there's any military trying to minimize deaths either, eg. by using less lethal weapons.
- AlotOfReading 7mo agoThe point of a military is to achieve political goals, not specifically to kill. Notice all the rules around PoWs and how the most common role militaries play is deterrence.
- gruez 7mo ago>The point of a military is to achieve political goals, not specifically to kill. The point of a company is to deliver shareholder value, but if boeing says the purpose of the company to sell planes, nobody is going to object. >Notice all the rules around PoWs I specifically acknowledged this in my prior comment >how the most common role militaries play is deterrence. "deterrence" goes out the window when you start a hot war.
- krapp 7mo ago>Based on a quick skim it looks like he's talking about combatant deaths? You should have read the article more closely. Hegseth describes the war in Iran very differently. At a news conference last week, he said it would have “no stupid rules of engagement.” In another, he said that the U.S. military would shower “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” Today’s campaign isn’t about enduring freedom. It’s called Operation Epic Fury. “Maximum lethality, not tepid legality,” Hegseth said earlier this year. “Violent effect, not politically correct.” What part of this language leads you to believe he's only talking about combatant deaths?
- remarkEon 7mo ago>They have explicit stated their disgust for the rules of engagement. Which ones? The ones from the GWOT? Those rules of "engagement"?
- wobblyasp 7mo agoDunno. You'll have to ask him. https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4418959/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-gen-dan/#:~:text=America%2C%20regardless%20of%20what%20so,t%20waste%20time%20or%20lives. https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4418...
- toofy 7mo agolet us not forget they changed the name to the department of war.
- snthpy 7mo agoIndeed. I'm curious how long before DHS becomes the Department of Surveillance?
- tekla 7mo agoNo they didn't. Stop perpetuating this lie. Is the XO stupid? Yes. That doesn't make it ok to lie about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-executive-order-rebrands-defense-department-war-department-rcna229461 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-...
- srean 7mo agoThis sort of moral decline bites you in the back years later. The same is going on in Israel - covering up of war crimes, covering of sexual and other abuse of prisoners
- quickthrowman 7mo agoNobody could’ve predicted that putting an abusive alcoholic in charge of the DoD would lead to this. Oh wait, plenty of people predicted this. There are no leaders in the current administration, only self-absorbed sycophants.