The Instigator
Targaryen
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Titanium_Conservative1776
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

American Forces Were Ineffective in the Middle East because of Our Restricting Rules of Engagement

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Targaryen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 454 times Debate No: 75251
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Targaryen

Pro

I'll be arguing that one of the main reasons that American forces were so ineffective in the Middle East was because our Rules of Engagement were too restricting.


Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2: Main Argument

Round 3: Rebuttal

Round 4: Closing Statement






Good luck to my opponenet. Also thank you to The-Voice-of-Truth for pointing out the flaw in my previous debate topic. Due to him pointing out the flaw, I was able to make this one! I'm a bit new to this for this is my first actual debate, so thanks for the help!


For anyone who is unfamiliar with our Rules of Engagement that were enforced in Afghanistan, and other places in the Middle East.

"Current rules of engagement require U.S. troops to confirm that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire, which has resulted in some aerial gunships being denied permission to fire even after reporting armed targets on the move." [1]





[1] http://www.newsmax.com...

Titanium_Conservative1776

Con

I will debate this topic with Pro. While I do believe that the modern rules of engagement must be revised, I also believe that there are more significant underlying reasons why the US military has struggled in the Middle East. I do not think an army should cite the rules of engagement as an excuse for ineffectiveness or failure.

Since Pro did not provide any rules, I will provide a few basic rules to abide by:
1. No trolling, cursing, or inappropriate conduct.
2. Sources must be cited, however prior knowledge of the subject is always permitted.
3. Both sides may only cite the Middle East and US conflicts in that region for their argument. No other outside conflict shall be permitted as part of an argument.

Those are some basic rules. The first two are used universally in practically every debate (so I see no reason to cite those rules) while I decided the third rule was necessary for the sake of this specific debate. Good luck to Pro!
Debate Round No. 1
Targaryen

Pro

Thank you to Con for creating those rules and establishing a better outline of what this debate will consist of! Good luck to Con, and lets get to it!




Case:

I'll start of by stating what the definition of the Rules of Engagement are:

Rules of Engagement: a directive issued by a military authority specifying the circumstances and LIMITATIONS under which forces will engage in and combat the enemy.


I'll be arguing that the Rules of Engagement, specific to Afghanistan and the conflicts the U.S was involved in in the Middle East, was one of the main reasons why the American forces were ineffective. The Rules of Engagement in the Middle East that were enforced on the U.S forces say that an American soldier may only engage with a target, or request an airstrike, if they're completely sure they're armed. This rule has resulted in deined access to Airstrikes in cases where one was needed, like the case with former Army Captain William Swenson, who was engaged in a firefight with over 150 Taliban fighters, and requested an airstrike, but was denied for hours, allowing the Taliban fighters to surround him and attack his position. [1]

William Swenson having to ask a J.A.G (military attourney), who's not in harms way of the firefight, but yet has the authority to deny airstrikes to people who need it, is completely backwards. A politcian shoudln't be granted the ability to deny someone who's in a firefight the right to an airstrike that could possibly save many lives, and stop a firefight all together. After the firefight in Kunar Province that Swenson was in, the same one where he was denied an airstrike for 5 hours, 5 U.S forces were killed, as well as the Afghan National Army losing 8 lives. The main reason why they were denied airstrikes for hours was because of the fact that the Taliban that were located inside a house were using women as a safe haven to protect themselves from any type of airstrike, which brings me to my next point. [1]

One of the biggest issues with the Rules of Engagement in the Middle East is the fact that they're more beneficial to terrorists than they are to U.S and allied forces. The Taliban understand that, and take advantage of, the U.S's Rules of Engagement that are built on the foundation of cutting down on civilian lives lost in the form of being completely sure that the area that the airstrike will take place in is actually full of enemies, and is clear of civillians. This foundation, a foundation that the Taliban know of, creates second guessing throughout the chain of command that an officer or soldier has to communicate with in order to get one airstrike. This second guessing takes time, lots of time, time that results in the deaths of American soldiers, as well as Allied soldiers. Anything that binds U.S and allies forces hands in conflict can be easily taken advantage of. Ryan Zinke, Seal Team 6 member and Commander, puts this into scope best when he says, "The first people who are going to look at it (Rules of Engagement) and review it are the enemies we're trying to fight. It's going to be a document that can be easily used against us." He goes on to mention that we are "losing our ability to fight oversees." [2]

The last factor to consider when looking at these Rules is that U.S forces and allied forces are unable to enter Afghan homes "except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk of life and limb."(Obama) [1] What this rule does is take away the ability to search for terrorirists where they're expected to be dwelling. Obama passing this rule PROTECTS terrorists more than it does U.S and allied troops. Rules catering to a terrorist's ability to kill and hide from American forces effectively is one of the sole reasons why we're ineffective in the Middle-East.



Thank you, that is my case! Pardon any errors I made, my mind is a bit shot from A.P finals. Good luck to Con!
Titanium_Conservative1776

Con

Titanium_Conservative1776 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Targaryen

Pro

I will not make any more claims/arguments due to Con's forfeiture. I realize that finals and A.P testing is going on, so I'll await his response.
Titanium_Conservative1776

Con

Titanium_Conservative1776 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Targaryen

Pro

Extend all arguments.
Titanium_Conservative1776

Con

Titanium_Conservative1776 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by doctorcsss 1 year ago
doctorcsss
RFD:I went into the debate with an unbiased POV, but only Pro really presented arguments. Con forfeited all of the arguments, and because of this, conduct goes to Pro, and arguments goes to Pro. Good job Pro for being cordial and respectful to Con even when they did not reply to your arguments. Sources were good for Pro, but I will give it as a tie since Con did not post any.
Posted by ikingmy 2 years ago
ikingmy
There is no declaration of war on any country in the middle east so in all honestly troops can't kill anyone without making sure that there being attacked by that person. A group of men with guns is not sufficient to say there under attack.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by doctorcsss 1 year ago
doctorcsss
TargaryenTitanium_Conservative1776Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by daem0n 2 years ago
daem0n
TargaryenTitanium_Conservative1776Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeits and fails to make any arguments.