We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement.
1. You know, “Warrior Culture” usually implies a strong, if often harsh and twisted, sense of martial honour, as a redeeming quality of an worthy opponent. Not completely amoral victory at any price, and most certainly not an edgelord munchkin whining about how following rules is stupid (seriously, could you sound any more petulant?).
2. A lot of restrictions of warfare are not purely humanitarian in purpose but also strategically beneficial by way of limiting escalation, like not faking surrender that may win one battle, but will lead to much greater losses, if not losing the war itself, in the long run as it makes any later surrenders much less likely to be accepted.
…but then Hegseth certainly thinks that shock and awe is all you need, that anyone not fighting to the death on principle no matter the circumstances is a coward deserving only of perdition, and that minimising your losses is woke…
That's all I ever wanted as a platoon leader.
In other words, you do not have the farsight to lead - let alone reform - the military of a global superpower.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
How did this psycho idiot manage to make it to Major before being dishonourably discharged???
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PS:
In this profession, you feel comfortable inside the violence so that our citizens can live peacefully.
This differentiation and alienation of the military from the populace in general like this should be deeply concerning even if the agenda wasn’t explicitly to use the military to suppress domestic opposition and if terror tactics with emphasis on the first part are explicitly the new doctrine…