Re:The Rise and Fall of the ‘Kill Box’ in US Military Strategy
by simonh on Monday January 23, 2017 @01:36PM
(#13464589)
The poster didn't say any of that, he just said that it seems specifically designating a kill box does not by itself override rules about target identification. That's all. There may be other factors that could cause an inappropriate target to get targeted illegitimately, but designating a kill box by itself doesn't do that. If you have reason to disagree with the actual point being made, please go ahead.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Rise and Fall of the ‘Kill Box’ in US Military Strategy
by iwlbebnd on Monday January 23, 2017 @01:46PM
(#13464713)
"Turns out it kindof doesn't.
After some quick reading, [1] a "kill box" is still subject to the standard rules of engagement."
If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. The US military does not in any meaningful sense follow its own rules of engagement, the rule of law, international law, common moral decency. The examples are legion and extremely well documented.
Re:The Rise and Fall of the ‘Kill Box’ in US Military Strategy
by khm on Monday January 23, 2017 @01:53PM
(#13464793)
I managed to serve for nearly a decade without committing or witnessing any war crimes. You're going to have to dial back the pearl-clutching if you want anyone to take you seriously.
There is a world of difference between incidents of some soldiers in a military of millions failing in their duties and that failure being a national defense policy. You are indicating the latter and I am personally denying the truth of that accusation.