Rules of Engagement

Having recently heard about the Marine in Fallujah who shot and killed an apparently wounded and unarmed militant, I have been pondering what it might be like for me if I were in a similar situation.

One thing that the TV media will not include in their context-less reporting is the fact that the same soldiers who were doing a sweep that day had previously encountered booby-trapped bodies and false surrenders over the preceeding days. In fact, one soldier from that unit was killed when he inspected an enemy body and was blown up by an improvised, concealed bomb.

From what I understand, these Marines were not on a medical expedition, but on a front-line sweep to neutralize any present threat that may arise for the troops that were to follow. If this were the case, then doesn't the action of this Marine seem more justified? I mean, think about it. While this particular action was harsh and seemingly off-the-cuff, this is war. Its kill or be killed out there. I can't imagine trying to deal with that sort of situation.

On a bit of a sidenote, I am a huge fan of the game Command & Conquer: Generals. If you know the game, you know its a war game whereby the player acts as the commander of an army. Well, I was just skimming the website today and found a strategy tip for winning the game. Here's the tip:

"Kill Everything. Finally, kill entirely and never let wounded enemies live. Kill each individual unit before moving on to the next one. Aside from movement speed, all units perform at full capacity until the moment of their death (some get slower). A unit that is ninety-nine percent dead is as good as a unit that is undamaged when exchanging fire. This is one of the most basic, yet most important tactics in the whole game."

This is just advice on winning a game about war. How much more might this strategy apply in actual warfare? Something to think about perhaps.