Former Drone Pilots Denounce 'Morally Outrageous' Program

Remember how many folks joined the military after 9/11, all the dancing we did around our flag and how someone was going to pay?


What do you think happens when we bomb the crap out of some small town over there? Best recruitment marketing on earth for isis, the talaband or who ever. Plus we give imagines of their flag and fighters a ton of airtime, talk about giving them creditability and some major marketing.


Best bet, call them for what they are, deranged and possibly mentally I'll, don't show images of any of these nut jobs, their flags or anything else, pull everyone out of every other Muslim country we have invaded... are there any that we haven't invaded yet? Restore the full US constitution, break down the overgrown military industrial complex, mainly all the war mongering money hungry contractors.

Don't let every sob story into the country, especially folks from countries we have destroyed, good chance they might still have a wee bit of a grudge.

....or just keep doing what we've been doing, boy has it worked great.... well for military contractors and isis' stretch of power. :rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
And now we hide behind joysticks in Arizona.

The difference?

Yup, and since they can't hit the joystick operators, safely killing from an office, Christmas parties will have to suffice. Same same.
 
I wonder how hard it would be to find a former <whatever> that now denounces what she did in the past?
 
And now we hide behind joysticks in Arizona.

The difference?

Difference is we don't use human shields in combat. I'd say that's a huge difference.

If you're implying that the drone operator is a coward because he's located far away from the action, that not cowardice. It's just smart.

People get all spun up about civilian casualties in the last two wars when in fact, they were far less than in previous wars. More restrictive ROE than we've ever had in modern warfare. Soviets slaughtered 850,000 - 1.5 million civilians in their 10 year fiasco in Afghanistan but yet we're all up in arms over a few thousand??? It's war. Civilian casualties are part of it.
 
Good thing we're on the right side, then. As others have said, the real problem is that the countries where this is happening don't take care of it themselves.

Why didn't Pakistan kill Bin Laden?

...and killing Bin Laden has done exactly what for us???? Mind you, the most expensive man hunt in history - a fricken dialysis patient! Really?
 
If you listen to the talking heads regarding the San Bernidino issue, it is multiple package deliveries and the lack of interface with your neighbors.

Uh oh. I'm a suspect.

2 houses down from me there's a big dumpster in the driveway. My wife walks by and talks with the woman there and they have a great conversation (as was relayed to me later). My wife asks about them moving in and the woman says that they've been there 13 years! Asks my wife how long we've been here: 6 years! 'Nice to meet you' they say. It's just par for the course these days.
 
Difference is we don't use human shields in combat. I'd say that's a huge difference.

If drone-missiling a talisisianwhatever soldier when he is home eating with his human shield family is OK, then logically it must be OK for them to kill our soldiers and families in their homes.
 
If drone-missiling a talisisianwhatever soldier when he is home eating with his human shield family is OK, then logically it must be OK for them to kill our soldiers and families in their homes.

Or blowing up a entire hotel to kill one guy, oopsing and blowing of a frickin hospitable, we have ZERO room to talk.
 
If drone-missiling a talisisianwhatever soldier when he is home eating with his human shield family is OK, then logically it must be OK for them to kill our soldiers and families in their homes.

Would you rather we bomb the entire neighborhood to get one guy? How about the fire bombings in WWII that killed more civilians than both Afghanistan and Iraq combined. A far worse atrocity but you're worried about some strategic strikes that result in minimal collateral damage???

We fought the wars as humanely as we could. The ROE was like fighting with one hand tied behind your back. The efforts to reduce civilian casualties were unprecedented in modern warfare.

You've got half the country saying level the place and the other half saying we're killing too many civilians. Then you've got the guy with his finger on the trigger that's trying to make the best judgment call ever changing ROE and the fog of war. Personally, I don't criticize the actions of someone in that situation unless I've walked in their shoes.
 
Would you rather we bomb the entire neighborhood to get one guy? How about the fire bombings in WWII that killed more civilians than both Afghanistan and Iraq combined. A far worse atrocity but you're worried about some strategic strikes that result in minimal collateral damage???

We fought the wars as humanely as we could. The ROE was like fighting with one hand tied behind your back. The efforts to reduce civilian casualties were unprecedented in modern warfare.

You've got half the country saying level the place and the other half saying we're killing too many civilians. Then you've got the guy with his finger on the trigger that's trying to make the best judgment call ever changing ROE and the fog of war. Personally, I don't criticize the actions of someone in that situation unless I've walked in their shoes.


So I shouldn't voice my opinion until I've bombed a hospital?
 
Who is this one guy that must die? And can he harm me from his mud hut?We could not go kill them and not let them in our country. Do those two things and we'd all get along much better. I don't care about collateral damage(theirs or ours) it is just a ridiculous moral argument. All the flag waving(other posters) for one way total war is stupid.
Would you rather we bomb the entire neighborhood to get one guy? How about the fire bombings in WWII that killed more civilians than both Afghanistan and Iraq combined. A far worse atrocity but you're worried about some strategic strikes that result in minimal collateral damage???

We fought the wars as humanely as we could. The ROE was like fighting with one hand tied behind your back. The efforts to reduce civilian casualties were unprecedented in modern warfare.

You've got half the country saying level the place and the other half saying we're killing too many civilians. Then you've got the guy with his finger on the trigger that's trying to make the best judgment call ever changing ROE and the fog of war. Personally, I don't criticize the actions of someone in that situation unless I've walked in their shoes.
 
Well drone pilots are not, and are not trained the same as actual combat fighter pilots. So it's understandable that some may not be able to stomach killing scores of people in Afghanistan by pushing a button in Arizona. They have no skin in the game and after a time perhaps it just ends up weighing heavily on them. It has to be different than blowing someone up who's been shooting at you and trying to kill you.
 
So I shouldn't voice my opinion until I've bombed a hospital?

You're example is fratricide. I'm referring to those who are following orders to kill the enemy but know there will be collateral damage with it. I don't envy being in that position and I don't criticize them for their actions.

But, on the subject of fratricide, I would think you would understand that war is a confusing thing. You don't always have sound intel and equipment that is fault free. With all the problems technology presents, the warfighter has to temper aggression with restraint. Too much aggression and fratricide can result. Too hesitant and you could cause the lives of friendly forces. That's the fog of war. Are there clear cases of outright aggression over coming logic / procedure? Yep but those are rare cases and the unfortunate results of human decision making.

Mistakes were made in the destruction of the Afghan hospital and those involved will most likely have career ending punishment over it. With out reading the specific details, which you and I don't have access to, impossible to form an opinion on that crew's actions. One thing is for sure, this sort of thing isn't common enough to get all worked up over. Mistakes happen and when you see the shear number of sorties flown over there, it's amazing it doesn't happen more often. I've seen first hand the aftermath of fratricide with an AC-130 and 2 AH-64s involved. It's not pretty but that's what happens in war. We investigate it, make changes, and hopefully prevent a similar act from happening in the future.
 
Last edited:
For senior management, it's a business, and Islam is a tool to help fill the ranks. Lost your job as a Republican Guard big shot in 2003? Mosey on over to Syria, pick up a few bucks, take advantage of the ignorant, fanatic, or naive. . .

Lost your job? That's a bit flippant. WE disbanded the Iraqi Army as part of our great nation building color-by-numbers booklet Dick gave Dubya to keep from getting bored while Bremer burned Rome to a crisp. Manufactured demand much? We created the environment that necessitated the surge in the first place. Poor people's kids got blown up as a result of that decision mind you. That they "volunteered" due to economic draft to get blown up does not take away from the fact we created the dynamic. You don't play favorites in a game of chess you don't understand.

We then put some of them displaced iraqi soldiers all together in "social networking camp" for half a decade, antagonized the civilian population with collateral damage (all occupying forces do, we're not more guilty of it than anyone in history) then we cut them loose on the civilian population and the disorganized, equally sectarian new-puppet civilian government. Ta-da. And we try to suggest we had no hand in ISIS? LOL

I may be paid to shut up and salute sharply, but even I can count with my fingers and figure out it doesn't take a phD in international affairs to understand the anatomy of why we're hated and why our poor bleed over our own decisions. Frankly this is the Brits and French's fault back in 1916, but that distinction is frankly academic at this point.

So the educated elites who understand these sectarian dynamics merely roll their eyes (which as long as there's no draft, is all they'll do) and the defense M-I-C laughs all the way to the bank while the dissenting voices get called hippies and dismissed. I love this Country but I'm not dying so a oil n' gas nouveau riche redneck soccer mom in Katy,TX can afford $2.50 gas, $99/rt Orlando tickets and thus have the economic freedom not to have to send her kid to die for it, while she laughs as I indoctrinate mine into believing everything the military does is good because I draw a paycheck from it currently and so should he. Yeah fat chance.

It's easy to lampoon dissenting servicemembers who operate drones, as their hand in the fiasco is considered a position not deserving of credibility due to physical separation from harm, but I get their point. The world is grey; I've been smart in my ability to cherry pick assignments that hold true to me. The day the military asks me to do something I don't believe in is the day I'll quietly complete taskings under lawful orders and separate at the first opportunity. A 20 year check does not supersede my moral compass. That involves removing food from my kid's table over a principle btw, hardly an academic posture.

Now back to our regular uneducated posturing about Middle eastern political dynamics and freedom fries.....:rolleyes2:
 
...and killing Bin Laden has done exactly what for us???? Mind you, the most expensive man hunt in history - a fricken dialysis patient! Really?

Dialysis patients can't lead terrorist campaigns?
 
Dialysis patients can't lead terrorist campaigns?

There you go...eating the sides and ignoring the main dish. The question is: What did we gain by spending so much money (and lives) to kill one man? Has it stopped terrorism?
 
There you go...eating the sides and ignoring the main dish. The question is: What did we gain by spending so much money (and lives) to kill one man? Has it stopped terrorism?

It may be a long time before we know what effect that operation had on the struggle.

The Doolittle raid on Tokyo did little damage, but besides giving the American public a badly-needed morale boost, I recently learned that it caused the Japanese to divert military resources to defense of the home islands. Who knows what effect Bin Laden's death had on the enemy? I sure don't.
 
It may be a long time before we know what effect that operation had on the struggle.

The Doolittle raid on Tokyo did little damage, but besides giving the American public a badly-needed morale boost, I recently learned that it caused the Japanese to divert military resources to defense of the home islands. Who knows what effect Bin Laden's death had on the enemy? I sure don't.

Well as a taxpayer I want my money back for a "Mission Accomplished" and then a "we killed Bin Laden" speech. Horse Manure! Things are now worse.

It's not people, its processes and systems that are to be combatted.

Ephes 6:12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
 
Well as a taxpayer I want my money back for a "Mission Accomplished" and then a "we killed Bin Laden" speech. Horse Manure! Things are now worse.

It's not people, its processes and systems that are to be combatted.

Ephes 6:12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

That boat did accomplish its mission, why would you want your money back?
 
Well as a taxpayer I want my money back for a "Mission Accomplished" and then a "we killed Bin Laden" speech. Horse Manure! Things are now worse.

It's not people, its processes and systems that are to be combatted.

Ephes 6:12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

So what do you think we should do?
 
Well as a taxpayer I want my money back for a "Mission Accomplished" and then a "we killed Bin Laden" speech. Horse Manure! Things are now worse.

Things are not worse because we killed Bin Laden (probably better as far as the AQ threat is concerned).

Things ARE worse in the Middle East now because we removed Saddam Hussein. Kind of like removing a key predator from the food chain- you disrupt the entire eco-system.
 
Things are not worse because we killed Bin Laden (probably better as far as the AQ threat is concerned).

Things ARE worse in the Middle East now because we removed Saddam Hussein. Kind of like removing a key predator from the food chain- you disrupt the entire eco-system.

I'm afraid you're right. When the 2003 Iraq war was being considered, I was undecided about whether it was a good idea. Unfortunately, I think history has now proven that it was not.
 
Things are not worse because we killed Bin Laden (probably better as far as the AQ threat is concerned).

Things ARE worse in the Middle East now because we removed Saddam Hussein. Kind of like removing a key predator from the food chain- you disrupt the entire eco-system.

But.. but... it is the divine mission of the USA to deliver freedom and democracy to the world, whether it wants it or not and regardless if the people have the desire or will or courage to hold onto it.

And then when our divine mission fails, it is our moral obligation to welcome into our freedom loving country all of the poor displaced migrants who decided they did not want to fight for democracy and freedom in their country.

Don't you know a damn thing?
 
Lost your job? That's a bit flippant. WE disbanded the Iraqi Army as part of our great nation building color-by-numbers booklet Dick gave Dubya to keep from getting bored while Bremer burned Rome to a crisp. Manufactured demand much? We created the environment that necessitated the surge in the first place. Poor people's kids got blown up as a result of that decision mind you. That they "volunteered" due to economic draft to get blown up does not take away from the fact we created the dynamic. You don't play favorites in a game of chess you don't understand.

We then put some of them displaced iraqi soldiers all together in "social networking camp" for half a decade, antagonized the civilian population with collateral damage (all occupying forces do, we're not more guilty of it than anyone in history) then we cut them loose on the civilian population and the disorganized, equally sectarian new-puppet civilian government. Ta-da. And we try to suggest we had no hand in ISIS? LOL

I may be paid to shut up and salute sharply, but even I can count with my fingers and figure out it doesn't take a phD in international affairs to understand the anatomy of why we're hated and why our poor bleed over our own decisions. Frankly this is the Brits and French's fault back in 1916, but that distinction is frankly academic at this point.

So the educated elites who understand these sectarian dynamics merely roll their eyes (which as long as there's no draft, is all they'll do) and the defense M-I-C laughs all the way to the bank while the dissenting voices get called hippies and dismissed. I love this Country but I'm not dying so a oil n' gas nouveau riche redneck soccer mom in Katy,TX can afford $2.50 gas, $99/rt Orlando tickets and thus have the economic freedom not to have to send her kid to die for it, while she laughs as I indoctrinate mine into believing everything the military does is good because I draw a paycheck from it currently and so should he. Yeah fat chance.

It's easy to lampoon dissenting servicemembers who operate drones, as their hand in the fiasco is considered a position not deserving of credibility due to physical separation from harm, but I get their point. The world is grey; I've been smart in my ability to cherry pick assignments that hold true to me. The day the military asks me to do something I don't believe in is the day I'll quietly complete taskings under lawful orders and separate at the first opportunity. A 20 year check does not supersede my moral compass. That involves removing food from my kid's table over a principle btw, hardly an academic posture.

Now back to our regular uneducated posturing about Middle eastern political dynamics and freedom fries.....:rolleyes2:

Well said, Sir. Well said.
 
If drone-missiling a talisisianwhatever soldier when he is home eating with his human shield family is OK, then logically it must be OK for them to kill our soldiers and families in their homes.

"O.K." or not O.K. isn't relevant. This isn't a morality play, and there are no points for sportsmsnship. If it makes tactical sense to kill him while he's eating dinner, if the ROE is there, then you do it. You do your best to minimize collateral, to keep some connection to your values, but you don't dodge the call, either.

Good lord, what total nonsense, that 'we" precipatated this. Where were "they" when their culture was being debased? What resonsibilty do they own for tolerating the depravity, violence, and perversion of Islam? Yeah, an individual can be innocent - but a people can't be. A child or grandmother is a victim, worthy of whatever help we can offer. But their culture, the people, own this. If we effed up to a degree, it pales in comparison to their culpability.

This isn't just about politician's vanity or corporation's profit, though those things are in there. . .just as it isn't about Islam. . .some cultures lose, and that's the way of it.
 
So you are saying it is fair to fight in warring peoples homes? Theirs, ours.
"O.K." or not O.K. isn't relevant. This isn't a morality play, and there are no points for sportsmsnship. If it makes tactical sense to kill him while he's eating dinner, if the ROE is there, then you do it. You do your best to minimize collateral, to keep some connection to your values, but you don't dodge the call, either.

Good lord, what total nonsense, that 'we" precipatated this. Where were "they" when their culture was being debased? What resonsibilty do they own for tolerating the depravity, violence, and perversion of Islam? Yeah, an individual can be innocent - but a people can't be. A child or grandmother is a victim, worthy of whatever help we can offer. But their culture, the people, own this. If we effed up to a degree, it pales in comparison to their culpability.

This isn't just about politician's vanity or corporation's profit, though those things are in there. . .just as it isn't about Islam. . .some cultures lose, and that's the way of it.
 
I think it's pretty laughable to think we're going to stop people in villages we're bombing from being radicalized when we can't even accomplish that in our own prosperous, safe, and comfy nation.

So, unless we're prepared to light up the entire middle east in nuclear fire and kill 'em all... which, no, I'm definitely not.... what are we doing? What are we accomplishing? Every single strategy we've tried over there has made things worse than they were before. We armed ISIS, we had a hand in Saddam Hussein taking power in Iraq, we once trained and armed Osama Bin Laden, this is just scratching the surface. You can follow this crap back at least as far as WWI. No, of course we didn't do this on purpose. We had good intents, we had smart people strategizing, we had our reasons. We thought it was essential.

The takeaway though is.... IT HAS BACKFIRED EVERY TIME. Yeah people want to kill us/destroy us/whatever. Always have, always will. This is not a pre-WWII "peace in our time" moment. This isn't even about good guys vs bad guys anymore.

Terrorism is not a nation state. We can't win a few campaigns, sign surrender papers and end it. We will never be able to defeat them in any traditional sense, we can surely kill a lot of them, disrupt their networks, etc but in doing so we recruit more terrorists. Likewise, they cannot defeat us. The sovereignty of the US was never in danger. They've certainly got the ability to kill a bunch of us too. It would seem nearly impossible for us to stop that completely... we certainly haven't pulled it off yet. We can sure kill more of them in retribution though, if we choose.

This seems like a never-ending cycle. It also seems to me that the only thing we have not really tried is simply walking away from it. If we're not in their world, they don't have a lot of good reason to be coming into ours. Sure they're fanatics and part of a cult of death and they hate our freedoms and all that crap... but I'm pretty darn sure that's not why they send suicide bombers over to murder our civilians.
 
So you are saying it is fair to fight in warring peoples homes? Theirs, ours.
Fair? What's that mean? Equitable? Just? Fair just ain't a factor, and any leader who condsidered "fairness" in prosecuting war would be incompetent, a dolt to be replaced ASAP. . .

What is defensible is using your advantages to see to your interests - it's not "fair" that we have air dominance, but I'm not voting to give the opposition a few squadrons to even the odds. . .

You talking moral high-ground, then? That we shouldn't squawk if they pull off a hit here at home? Because that would be "fair", since we did the same already? I'm good on the moral comparison, as-is; we don't kill civilians by intention, we don't sell children into sexual slavery, haven't burned a prisoner alive for web viewing, or sawed off the heads of living victims. We don't even run dope to help finance operations. . .
 
There you go...eating the sides and ignoring the main dish. The question is: What did we gain by spending so much money (and lives) to kill one man? Has it stopped terrorism?
Looks who's talking. You didn't even attempt to answer the question posed to you. Don't bother answering now. I won't see it.
 
Ah but you are considering fairness. Otherwise we'd just go nuclear or use poison.
PS we have condoned the sexual slavery of children by our allies on our airbases, and we have sold drugs to finance (anti)terrorists(of the week.) Not sure about the other stuff you listed, but we aren't morally superior to anyone.
Fair? What's that mean? Equitable? Just? Fair just ain't a factor, and any leader who condsidered "fairness" in prosecuting war would be incompetent, a dolt to be replaced ASAP. . .

What is defensible is using your advantages to see to your interests - it's not "fair" that we have air dominance, but I'm not voting to give the opposition a few squadrons to even the odds. . .

You talking moral high-ground, then? That we shouldn't squawk if they pull off a hit here at home? Because that would be "fair", since we did the same already? I'm good on the moral comparison, as-is; we don't kill civilians by intention, we don't sell children into sexual slavery, haven't burned a prisoner alive for web viewing, or sawed off the heads of living victims. We don't even run dope to help finance operations. . .
 
Ah but you are considering fairness. Otherwise we'd just go nuclear or use poison.
PS we have condoned the sexual slavery of children by our allies on our airbases, and we have sold drugs to finance (anti)terrorists(of the week.) Not sure about the other stuff you listed, but we aren't morally superior to anyone.

Your information is incorrect. Sexual slavery is illegal on US bases and against the UCMJ. Perhaps you're referring to cases that happen outside of bases in countries where they don't enforce laws preventing it such as raping Afghan boys by Afghan police???

When I was in Kosovo, Russians would ship in prodtitutes for their soldiers while only 20 miles away on our base it is illegal. Oh yeah, we weren't permitted to drink alcohol either while they got drunk regularly.

So basically, yeah, American service members are held to a higher moral standard than others.
 
Last edited:
Your information is incorrect. Sexual slavery is illegal on US bases and against the UCMJ. Perhaps you're referring to cases that happen outside of bases in countries where there are no laws preventing it such as raping Afghan boys by Afghan police???

When I was in Kosovo, Russians would ship in prodtitutes for their soldiers while only 20 miles away on our base it is illegal. Oh yeah, we weren't permitted to drink alcohol either while they got drunk regularly.

So basically, yeah, American service members are held to a higher moral standard than others.

This is so very true...then again MWR did a fine job in Bootyfest, sorry I meant Budapest when the troops were on R and R...

We fight with the most PC military in the world and despite that still successful most of the time. I spent the last couple of days in Belgium and particularly Waterloo and Bastogne visiting battle fields and also our two American Cemeteries located there...war has changed and because of it conflicts never find resolution...its really that simple...
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/w...-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0
KABUL, Afghanistan — In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.

“At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.”
Your information is incorrect. Sexual slavery is illegal on US bases and against the UCMJ. Perhaps you're referring to cases that happen outside of bases in countries where there are no laws preventing it such as raping Afghan boys by Afghan police???

When I was in Kosovo, Russians would ship in prodtitutes for their soldiers while only 20 miles away on our base it is illegal. Oh yeah, we weren't permitted to drink alcohol either while they got drunk regularly.

So basically, yeah, American service members are held to a higher moral standard than others.
 
Single report from an E-4 about on base activity. Credibility is lacking...no one is questioning off base buggering of boys...hell goats as well...total different subject...
 
So what's the difference between a drone strike and an airstrike that's done where the aircraft are outside the range of the anti-air implements?
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/w...-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0
KABUL, Afghanistan — In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.

“At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.”

Yeah, what does that have to do with Anerican servicemen and their morals? This isn't like ROE being applied to all allied forces. This is an individual policy matter that can't be applied to all forces. If there is no joint agreement in place that applies to all members at that base, which there isn't, then those Marines have no legal matter in it. It would be like trying to enforce American laws or morals on Afghans.

Take General Order # 1. The prohibitions in it apply to US servicemen and women and not allies. I could go to a Russian base and be offered a prostitute but politely decline. Actually been offered a prostitute just after landing in Bulgaria on the ramp. I've been to an Italian base and offered wine with my meal but politely declined. Both bases, fall under an allied umbrella but the activities are prohibited under American military policy and punishable under UCMJ. Just the way it is.
 
Last edited:
You said sexual slavery is illegal on US bases. Story in the NYT of sexual slavery being condoned by the US on US bases. Go on attack the credibility of the NYTs I don't like them either.:lol:
Yeah, what does that have to do with Anerican servicemen and their morals? This isn't like ROE being applied to all allied forces. This is an individual policy matter that can't be applied to all forces. If there is no joint agreement in place that applies to all members at that base, which there isn't, then those Marines have no legal matter in it. It would be like trying to enforce American laws or morals on Afghans.

Take General Order # 1. The prohibitions in it apply to US servicemen and women and not allies. I could go to a Russian base and be offered a prostitute but politely decline. Actually been offered a prostitute just after landing in Bulgaria on the ramp. I've been to an Italian base and offered wine with my meal but politely declined. Both bases, fall under an allied umbrella but the activities are prohibited under American military policy and punishable under UCMJ. Just the way it is.
 
Back
Top