calfoxwc Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=121330893 Rules Of Engagement Are A Dilemma For U.S. Troops Tom Bowman and Renee Montagne December 11, 2009 As part of the new American counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, soldiers and Marines must work first to protect the Afghan population. Given the choice between killing the enemy or risking civilian lives, they have been willing to let the enemy go. NPR's Tom Bowman was in Afghanistan earlier this year and witnessed troops grappling with the dilemma of whether to shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 Cal, you keep posting about this. The problem is, to no one's surprise, you're way off about it, just irresponsibly spouting your mouth off. The rules of engagement are determined by the generals, not Obama. The choice to go even further to avoid civilian casualties, which is supremely important to winning over the Afghan population, is part of the new strategy. It comes from the generals. They thought it up. You're bashing the decisions of our own generals. You just don't know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 Cal, you keep posting about this. The problem is, to no one's surprise, you're way off about it, just irresponsibly spouting your mouth off. The rules of engagement are determined by the generals, not Obama. The choice to go even further to avoid civilian casualties, which is supremely important to winning over the Afghan population, is part of the new strategy. It comes from the generals. They thought it up. You're bashing the decisions of our own generals. You just don't know it. Decisions are made by the Generals in DC, after being approved the the SecDef and the President. It's all political nonsense. The needs of the grunts on the ground were put on the back burner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 Ok, I understand what you are saying, Heck. But you are wrong. Perhaps you forget the problems in how the war was run in Vietnam. Same thing here, the generals ask for 40,000, they wait 4 months for 30 thousand, and that was a decision by our generals? No. Sorry, Heck, but seriously, everything about Obama and his admin is radical, gov control of every freakin thing. To say Obama's control is oblivious to the military, is like saying he had nothing to do with the terrorists very, very, very wrongly being tried in civilian court in New York. Politics is EVERYTHING to this admin, and leftists in Congress. I bring it up again, because now, it is worse - and we have a "president" who knows nothing about the military, about being in the military. Heck, I was in the service. I KNEW SOLDIERS older than me, who HAD BEEN IN VIETNAM. THEY TOLD me about how the political rules of engagement tied their hands behind their backs in a lot of ways during the LBJ era. All those men died, while LBJ refused to go all out to win, like blasting Haiphong Harbor off the damn map And LBJ wasn't even a radical leftist college kid like Obama. My cousin was in Vietnam. An advisor to S. Vietnamese expedition troops. Heck. find somebody you know who was THERE, and come back and talk intelligently. And, I have already heard second and third hand, about how our folks over there are being affected by the politics by leftists in Congress and the Obama admin. Go join the military, Heck, you need to grow up a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 Cal, you're just clueless. The rules are engagement are there because that's what our military leaders think gives us the best chance for success. The idea that they've been devised by the President or the "leftists in Congress" or some foreign commander is just more of your usual crackpot stuff. So is the idea that you "take the gloves off" and let the individual soldiers devise their own strategies, their own rules of engagement. Killing Afghan civilians in airstrikes is a huge problem for us, and a huge political problem for the Afghan government we sponsor, one that makes the mission harder and harder to accomplish. That's why McCrystal changed the rules regarding air strikes and when they can be performed as soon as he took over command - not Obama, or "leftists". General McChrystal did that. You can disagree with his decision to do that if you like, but it was his decision. Obviously, the fact that you knew people who served in Vietnam (so do I, so does everyone) doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 You are clueless. The politically charged Afghan civilian death count was about 400 to 20. But, to appease other countries, and his radical left base, albeit not enough... he is tying our military ops' arms behind their backs to be politically correct. Like LBJ - The generals are dominated by politics to a degree. Pressure in on now to stop the Predator attacks. Grow up a little Heck. Your putdowns don't impress me, and you really reach when you talk about military matters. You don't know diddley about it. "Oh, but Cal, I read a book in college about it" I know we should have gone into Iraq, based on what a close friend told he. He was in Intel in Iraq for a year. You think you know we shouldn't have gone into Iraq based on what you read on MoveonupGore'scrotch. orgy. Be very quiet, Heck, you're more likely to be thought an experienced in life American than a socialist prof worhipping college boy type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 As I recall Rumsfeld locked horns with many regular army types. I've heard he was never into the "nation building" part of the plan nor a big fan of more US troops on the ground. Those plans led to more US casualties, more anti US sentiment. Drone strikes with high altitide and less discriminate bombing kill lots more civilians which make that type of warfare more palateable to the folks back home. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 There are countries who are happy our soldiers are getting killed - they hate the U.S. I often didn't agree with Rummy on things... but if you have to fight, I will support carefully targeted missiles from the Predators over having all our troops go door to door or try to stop convoys any time. Which, the terrorists hide behind civilians in those houses and convoys. You'd rather lose the war than have some civilians get caught in the battle? That's a tragic choice, but one where the viciousness of the enemy forces. There have been civilian casualities in every single war. It's tragic, but some degree cannot be helped. Their tragedy is on the ones who START the wars, not the ones who fight in self defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 So if a man cannot worship 2 Gods at the same time, can he be president over 2 nations? The Taliban LOVES Obama These ROEs are a surefire way to lose a war & American troops' lives. Either fight to win using the Rules of Engagement successfully utilized by General Patton during WWII - pursuing and shooting the enemy wherever it may be OR GET THE HELL OUT!! President Obama, stop playing with our troops' lives for your social engineering! source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.