Vietnam history - Rules of Engagement as seen through the different Essay

Vietnam history - Rules of Engagement as seen through the different levels of command - Essay Example There are certain rules of engagement that the Army has to consider during its operation, and while fighting the war it has to take care not to go against any of the international laws or the conditions laid down by their commanders. They are only allowed to use force and power to win the war if they use it within the set discipline and rules. In Vietnam the individual soldiers totally understood the rules of engagement. However, the problem was with them accepting those rules. The ROE led to restrictions on the military because of which their morale went down. The reason behind this was that, metaphorically speaking, one of the hands of the military was tied back and they were fighting in such a position. This was of course difficult for them and was like asking them to waste their lives without any reason since they could not defend themselves freely just due to certain rules. It is difficult for a battalion commander to come to a conclusion as to when his side should win the battl e, and what they would lose in order for that to happen. The rules of engagement, from the point of view the battalion commanders were pretty realistic. The soldiers would totally disagree since they are fighting and anything that hinders them in defending themselves or others would be disagreeable to them. Coming back to battalion commanders, they feel that it is their right to protect the innocent civilians. And that is where the ROE come into play. These rules prevent the soldiers from attacking under certain circumstances as, although they might only be retaliating to the attack they received, they might also hurt some other people around which is just not done (Lt. Col. Douglas Smith). Same was the case with the division commanders. They also felt the same and outlined the rules of engagement that the army was supposed to follow. It is clear that it was the first priority of these commanders to prevent unnecessary casualties and destruction (Holdorf, 1975). General William West moreland was the permanent commander of MACV and all the US forces in Vietnam were under him. His foresight told him that there was going to be a rise in conflict. The plan that he approached was aggressive and can be called â€Å"search and destroy†. What Westmoreland did was make the forces of Viet Cong come out in order that his men could kill them. According to this man, defeating Viet Cong only required great use of weaponry. Westmoreland was pretty optimistic regarding the war and in his speeches he used to report about the success of the American forces in pulling down the Vietnamese Army. It was during the First World War that in Vietnam President Lyndon Johnson decided against mobilizing the National Guards as, from what he thought, doing such a thing would lead to the Soviets and Chinese getting hints which would definitely cause certain effects upon their direct involvement in the war (Doubler, 2008). Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara was responsible for recomme nding to President Johnson to mobilize the National Guards as well as the reserves. This was in the July of 1965. However, according to the President the ground war was going to end soon and there was a requirement of forces to be present in case there was a war in Korea. The reason that McNamara gives for them failing was that they did not take seriously the obstacles and problems they had to face. Also, according to him they had supported the wrong government

Is killing animals , or making them suffer, for human ends morally Essay

Is killing animals , or making them suffer, for human ends morally defensible - Essay Example My opinion extends to other human activities that put harm animal which are not necessary, such as poaching or game hunting or animal fights. There is a fundamental moral principle which permits us to share a kind of equal treatment that concerns all human beings and with every kind of differences that exist between and every one of us. I believe that this moral code is not only limited to human beings, but also to other living sentient beings in our environment. I believe that respect for life even extends to non-human living organisms and that animals have every right to be treated with much care and equanimity as we do with a fellow human being. Even if non-human animals are lacking superior and complex rational faculties and capabilities compared to humans, their existence is something to be valued and not to be brushed aside so brusquely. If one were to look at it, an average person would rather dismiss the issue of animal rights while not being able to sit down and swallow the problems of racial discrimination. The reason behind this is that people in general, most of the time ignorantly or unintentionally, have speciesism as part of their mindset. Speciesism could be defined as the belief that one kind of species among all other members of the group is more superior to the rest, therefore the rationale for dominance, subjugation or annihilation of the superior specie against the more inferior. In this case, humanity has seen itself at the highest pedestal of the food chain. Singer made this observation on speciesism in this manner: This attitude reflects a popular prejudice against taking the interests of animals seriously - a prejudice no better founded than the prejudice of white slaveowners against taking the interests of their African slaves seriously. It is easy for us to criticise the prejudices of our grandfathers, from which our fathers freed themselves. It is more difficult to distance ourselves from our own views, so that we can dispassionately search for prejudices among the beliefs and values we hold. What is needed now is a willingness to follow the arguments where they lead, without a prior assumption that the issue is not worth our attention (55-56). I would now come to think that if animals were in the same level as human beings, perhaps in the eyes of a Higher Being such as God, animals were and are still the most abused group of organisms on the Earth. Yet, most of us human beings are not too concerned about this because there is either lack of care or concern. It can be said then that the lack of compassion is what kills animals by human hands. I think there is more to that than just a lack of care for life, something that is more logical. For example, If a person were to be asked whether it is better to put a human being or an animal as a test subject for a scientific experiment that could find a cure for a deadly disease and save millions of lives, would it be certain to say that the person would choose another human being to be put under the knife than an animal? Even if the person being asked was an animal lover or animal rights advocate, I most certainly doubt that any psychologically normal person would choose another human being in a heartbeat. People would rather have an animal go under the experimentation instead since it human beings have more attachment and concern for another human being than an animal. I will not be a hypocrite to say that I know any better about this matter. If being asked the same question, I would