I think I sort of understand this -
"Right. How do you think it is working in a war with Terrorists? If the British had stuck with their historically far superior fighting policies and rules of engagement during the American Revolution, they'd have been defeated ... oh wait, they were!!! Because they were too stubborn to change when fighting a smart enemy that wouldn't play according to their rules."
in isolation, but I don't understand it as a response to the quoted text preceding it
"The US instructs its soldiers to make an effort to avoid giving away important information if they are captured, and to escape if they can. According to your definition of surrender, it would seem that American soldiers who abide by the codes they are told to follow, would not have actually surrendered."
It almost seems like your saying US soldiers should give away information, and not try and escape if captured. I'm pretty sure you don't mean that, but its what the combination of quote and reply in your posts implies.
Kill the enemy unless or until they have surrendered on the terms I've laid out.
What if they pretend to agree but don't give you all the information that they have that you need? What if you have a problem telling if they are giving you the information or not (they could be giving false information, or they could be giving you some information and claiming they don't know anything else, they might be lying or they might be telling the truth).
Or if they just say "I won't give you any information", and you shoot them, does that really mean "war over by Christmas? You haven't gotten any information from them, and you haven't exactly acted in such a way as to win the hearts and minds of those sitting on the fence. |
