New Political Meddling Could Make <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq Our Next VietnamBy Brannon Howse <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 
Imagine this not-so-unimaginable scenario: A police officer pulls up to a house where a domestic disturbance has been reported. As the officer approaches the house, a man wielding a gun bursts out the front door, aims his weapon at the officer, and screams, "I'm going to kill you!" The officer has no place to take cover. What would a reasonable law enforcement official do in such a situation?
 
Any officer will tell you that if a man is pointing a gun at him and yelling that he is going to shoot the officer, the policeman is well within his legal rights to shoot first in self defense. All that is required to justify lethal force is that the officer fears for his life. He does not have to wait for the gunman to fire before the policeman can shoot at the attacker.
 
But imagine how different-and tragic-the outcome of this scenario could be if the Attorney General of the United States, the highest ranking law enforcement official in the country, had declared a new policy that no sheriff, deputy, police officer, FBI agent, U.S. Marshall, or Secret Service agent could fire their gun at someone unless the assailant fired first. Any law enforcement official that shot before being shot at would be prosecuted. Under this policy law enforcement officials would be wholly justified in resigning immediately and getting another job. Criminals would have a heyday if they knew they had one free shot before being in danger themselves. Obviously absurd, right?
 
Unless you happen to be politicians overseeing the war in Iraq.
 
That's right! We have received e-mails from the family members of military personal fighting in Iraq telling us that the military has politically coerced, non-sensical "rules of engagement." It has been reported that our men and women fighting in Iraq do not have the right to shoot at the enemy until the enemy shoots at them first. I recently heard a well-documented report in which an enemy terrorist was observed pointing a rocket launcher at American troops, clearly preparing to fire at the watching soldiers. Yet our servicemen were not able to take him out before he fired. Only after the enemy fired his rocket, killing several U. S. soldiers, were the remaining troops allowed to destroy the enemy. The Americans involved in the incident were all too aware that any solider who fires a weapon before being fired upon can face a court-martial.
 
Depriving our soldiers of their Biblical and Constitutional right of self-defense is inexcusable. (Exodus 22:2)  
 
Think about this for a minute. Troops have to wait until their fellow soldiers are killed before they can defend themselves by shooting back. But wait, it gets worse. If a solider does shoot at the enemy, they have to fill out a stack of paper work that would make any Washington bureaucrat proud.
 
Why would we ever give our soldiers an order not to fire until fired upon? Wars are won by killing the other guy first, not by waiting to see what he'll do. We already know the enemy wants to kill us. That's why we get into wars to begin with.
 
I doubt any father or mother would encourage a son or daughter to join the military knowing what I have just reported, and I dare say this deadly policy was not presented to recruits before they joined the military. Since our government has changed the assumptions upon which someone signs up to fight, then we should give the soldiers the option to stay and fight or to catch the first flight home, now that they know what the new rules are.  
And what do our rules signal to the enemy? The foes we face are shrewd, vicious people who know these "rules of engagement" and will use them to their advantage-and to the destruction of our men in uniform. Can we win this war with such an irresponsible, politically correct policy? Did we win in Vietnam with politicians micromanaging the war? These sickening rules of engagement must be changed now, or our soldiers need to come home before any more die from our national leaders' love of politically correct fighting.
 
Military family members have told me that soldiers are afraid to speak out about these foolish and deadly "rules of engagement" because they fear retaliation that will damage their military careers. Please contact your members of Congress and the White House and ask them to change these deadly and politically correct "rules of engagement".
 
I contacted a good friend of mine that is a well-known national talk-show host and he tells me that he has also received credible reports confirming these deadly "rules of engagement".
 
Adding 20,000, 30,000 or 100,000 new troops will not change the outcome of this war unless the politicians stop managing the war like a bunch of politically correct, liberals.
Although I don't have a son in Iraq, our nation has thousands of sons and daughters serving there, and we at home owe it to them to speak up since they can't. If we expect to continue being served by an all voluntary military, our politicians had better untie the hands of our soldiers so they can defend themselves, win this war, and come home alive! We owe nothing less to our great American soldiers and their families.