The Instigator
Targaryen
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
abhishek663
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

America's Rules of Engagement in the Middle East Were too Restricting

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 1 vote the winner is...
Targaryen
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/17/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 584 times Debate No: 75394
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Targaryen

Pro

I will be arguing that America's Rules of Engagement that were enforced in the Middle East were too restricting.

The R.O.E's that were enforced in the Middle East are as follows:

"The rules of engagement (ROE) put into place in 2009 and the early part of 2010 limited air and artillery strikes in the name of preventing civilian casualties, and at times called upon soldiers to restrain from firing their weapons. The report in the Washington Times indicates that, upon approaching Taliban fighters, a ground unit would often have to convince a remote commander that the threat was armed before engaging." [1]

Those are the R.O.E's put simply. Con will be arguing that the Rules of Engagement enforced on American forces in the Middle East were not restricting. B.O.P is shared.

First round is acceptance, followed by presenting your case, then rebuttals, and finally closing statement. Good luck to my opponent, and lets have a great debate!

[1] http://rt.com...
abhishek663

Con

I somehow disagree with my friend. America has policy to intervene any country she wants to and she always pastes her opinion over a particular issue about that country. She always looks about her benefits and all. Somehow she is misusing
her status of being a superpower. Now if you want something then you in return you need to pay something. That's what America is paying as the lives of her soldiers. Or may be it is trying to show the world that it is right ,whatever she is doing. Or may be America's rules of engagement are so restricting just because to gain the sympathy of world and to carry on the politics on the corpses of her soldiers.
Debate Round No. 1
Targaryen

Pro

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, were too restricting, and put American lives in danger, rather than protecting them. 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 denied 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 attorney), 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 politician shouldn'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 civilians. 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 terrorists 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.

In conclusion, America's Rules of Engagement create a plethora of second guessing among soldiers and officers alike. This second guessing has resulted in deaths, where they could have been prevented through means of protection through airstrikes, or anything that requires a solider to have to go through the chain of command to get something.

Thank you, that is my case! Good luck to Con. Remember, 2nd round is making your case. Rebuttals comes in the 3rd round.

[1] http://www.washingtontimes.com......
[2]http://www.washingtontimes.com......
abhishek663

Con

abhishek663 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Targaryen

Pro

Extend all arguments.
abhishek663

Con

abhishek663 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Targaryen

Pro

Extend all arguments.
abhishek663

Con

abhishek663 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MrVan 2 years ago
MrVan
Targaryenabhishek663
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to make any real arguments.