As you know if you've been reading this blog for any length of time, I've been a strong advocate of a "gloves off" philosophy of dealing with the enemy. However, since I lack the personal military expertise to really analyze the recent incarnations of the Rules of Engagement for our troops, I've held off on taking a good look at them.

Fortunately, Herschel Smith, over at The Captain's Journal, has been doing so.

In his most recent installment, Smith speaks with Milblogger T.F. Boggs about the R.O.E.'s, and the very real ramifications that second-guessing can have in the field. Below is some of what Sgt. Boggs had to say when he spoke with Hugh Hewitt recently:

We did what we were supposed to do, but we faced hours of paperwork when we had just gotten off the road for twelve hours. We faced paperwork, we got to face questions, we got to go see the commander, we got to do all of this stuff, and we were just doing our job. So the next time we go out, we second-guess. Was that the right thing to do? What should we do? We don’t want to do paperwork now, so do we let this guy go?

[...]

Hewitt:
Do the Iraqi people understand and take advantage of the disabilities imposed on the American fighting men?

Boggs:
Oh yea – the enemy in particular. I told this story earlier – if you guys were listening – about the IED, the one who let the IED off, the two other guys that were on the motorcycle. This guy just claimed ignorance, like he was dumb. He was wandering around like he was stupid; he doesn’t know anything. We swipe him for explosives, he comes up negative, supposedly. We let the guy go. The guy walks off, and two days later, comes back – let’s another bomb off.

There's lots more. Read the full post, and catch up on the previous installments, here.

As I've repeatedly acknowledged, I have no direct military experience. But you don't have to in order to understand that the enemy doesn't play nice. Hobbling our military isn't going to win us any friends; those who hate us will hate us anyway.

Losing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the greater War on Terror is unacceptable. The consequences would be unspeakable. So why aren't we fighting to win?

The media is quick to point out that many Americans do not approve of the way the war has been run, or of the war in general. But one question that has not been asked is why people disapprove.

How many of those who disapprove of the way the war has been run disapprove because we are not being aggressive enough? How many disapprove because we are following Rules of Engagement that hamper the ability of our troops to do what they need to?

With the "surge," supposedly, are supposed to come "more aggressive" Rules of Engagement. Some recent actions have been promising, but I'm not convinced yet that we really mean what we say. What really concerns me are the things I didn't hear in the President's most recent speech.

What I want to hear is: "Gloves off. We are coming for you, and we're not going to apologize for doing it. We're not going to arrest our troops for killing you. We're not going to stop chasing you because of what building you run into. Your days are numbered, and there's nowhere you can hide that we can't find you. We are the United States of America, and our troops are better than anyone else at killing the enemy. You're going to find out exactly how good at that we are. From this day until your last on earth - which will be soon - you will not know a single night's peaceful sleep."

Bottom line is that our troops on the ground are fighting this to win it, and their leadership owes them the backbone to do the same.