Quote

It is absolutely bedrock to the British Army's philosophy that a commanding officer is responsible for what goes on within his command.

We ask the military to be in a position that, if we ask them to do a task, they are absolutely able to do it for us.

Offensive operations and hunting down the enemy is an integral part of any counterinsurgency approach.

Secret operations are essential in war; upon them the army relies to make its every move.

In my view, targeted lethal force is at its least controversial when it is on its strongest, most traditional legal foundation. The essential mission of the U.S. military is to capture or kill an enemy. Armies have been doing this for thousands of years. As part of a congressionally authorized armed conflict, the foundation is even stronger.

But if you're going to go out on a military unit, you've got to allow yourself to be under the control of the commander because you really could put the troops in danger.

It is made the duty of every Commanding Officer in the Department, to arrest and send to these Headquarters, under guard, every officer or soldier who may be found absent from his command, without the regular leave in writing, prescribed by Regulations and General Orders.

The military is a machine of war. Not a law enforcement agency.

No operational commander should have to assign a soldier a task that could be done as well by a computer, a remote sensor, or an unmanned airplane.

There is such a thing as legitimate warfare: war has its laws; there are things which may fairly be done, and things which may not be done.