B
Brendan
Guest
Note that I never said anything about ‘shoot to injure’. The desire is to render the enemy to be ‘combat ineffective’. You aim for center mass. You fire till the target goes down and ceases to be a combat asset. You call for medical assistance when the area is secure.I’m pretty sure the Marine Corps culture promotes killing your enemy when engaged in battle. There is not a “shoot to injure” culture in the Corps.
But you are correct. In the Corps like in the Army even privates are instilled with the morals–and instructed–to take prisoners and not execute people on spot after the battle ceases.
You are correct. It is not about attempting to injure. The intent is to render the target combat ineffective. To take them out of the battle as a combat asset. No more, no less.But the process of the battle itself is one of killing on the macro level. For instance, in training, when dug in and our position is being over run, those with M-16’s would switch from single fire to three round bursts and spray indiscriminately within each rifleman’s zone of fire. That’s not about attempting to injure. Nor is donning bayonet and spearing your enemy.
(and there was no such thing as ‘indiscriminate fire’ , even suppressive fire is targeted towards an enemy. It differs from direct targeted fire in that the target is the enemy formation, not a specific combat asset.
That is probably because I was an Army Officer ( Maj). I was the Battalion S-3 for an Armor Battalion. It was my job to make sure the troopers knew the rules of engagement. What they could, and could NOT do as members of the US military (and as ethical human beings)I know what you are saying but you are assessing this from the stand point of the person behind the gun or from the officer, soldier, or civilian protecting his or her home, property, family, or body.