• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Marine and Afghan forces lose many due to lack of support...

MikeVFF

Active member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
276
Reaction score
64
Location
VT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
'We're pinned down:' 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush | McClatchy
U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village.

"We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We've lost today," Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter's repeated demands for helicopters.

Three Americans and 19 Afghans were wounded, and U.S. forces later recovered the bodies of two insurgents, although they believe more were killed.

"This is unbelievable. We have a platoon (of Afghan army) out there and we've got no Hotel Echo," Swenson shouted above the din of gunfire, using the military acronym for high explosive artillery shells. "We're pinned down."

Please read the article fully, this has been a pattern on the Afghan front.

Under command of the new administration, the US military's hands are tied. The new appointed Military leaders have protocol that, bluntly, chooses foreign civilians lives over those of our own troops.

If any of you don't think Obama's administration is to blame for the recent death toll in Afghanistan, think again.
 
Before we jump to too many conclusions, there are some things to note.

Several U.S. officers said they suspected that the insurgents had been tipped off by sympathizers in the local Afghan security forces or by the village elders, who announced over the weekend that they were accepting the authority of the local government.

"Whatever we do always leaks," said Marine Lt. Ademola Fabayo, 28, a New Yorker who was born in Nigeria and is the operations officer for the trainers from the 3rd Marine Division. "You can't trust even some of their soldiers or officers."

This is the key section of the report. If the enemy knows what you are going to do, you are screwed.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the commanders chose civilian lives over the lives of troops. All we are told in the article is that helicopters and HE and smoke artillery where unavailable, but that WP was available, and used. We do not know why and there are a number of reasons possible, with logistic troubles probably topping the list.

This is a tragic story, and to twist it to serve a political purpose is vile.

Also, please read the BN news rules, your thread title is supposed to match the article headline.
 
Before we jump to too many conclusions, there are some things to note.



This is the key section of the report. If the enemy knows what you are going to do, you are screwed.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the commanders chose civilian lives over the lives of troops. All we are told in the article is that helicopters and HE and smoke artillery where unavailable, but that WP was available, and used. We do not know why and there are a number of reasons possible, with logistic troubles probably topping the list.

This is a tragic story, and to twist it to serve a political purpose is vile.

Also, please read the BN news rules, your thread title is supposed to match the article headline.

Ok, you missed the point, NEW RESTRICTIONS resulted a lack in EFFECTIVE ARTILLERY FIRE on targets with no chance of collateral damage. If we blew those suckers up like we were previously allowed to do these great people most likely WOULDN'T HAVE DIED.

Don't forget:
"Whatever we do always leaks," said Marine Lt. Ademola Fabayo, 28, a New Yorker who was born in Nigeria and is the operations officer for the trainers from the 3rd Marine Division. "You can't trust even some of their soldiers or officers."

This is a common pattern throughout the war, but our advanced weaponry has balanced these complications... until now.
 
Last edited:
Ok, you missed the point, NEW RESTRICTIONS resulted a lack in EFFECTIVE ARTILLERY FIRE on targets with no chance of collateral damage. If we blew those suckers up like we were previously allowed to do these great people most likely WOULDN'T HAVE DIED.

But innocent civilians, including children and the elderly, would've.
And that's unacceptable.
And my son is in the army, so don't tell me I don't care about the troops.
Our troops are compassionate and brave, and wouldn't want innocent civilians blown up, even if it might make their jobs safer and easier.
 
Last edited:
But innocent civilians, including children and the elderly, would've.
And that's unacceptable.
And my son is in the army, so don't tell me I don't care about the troops.
Our troops are compassionate and brave, and wouldn't want innocent civilians blown up, even if it might make their jobs safer and easier.

AHAHAHA

You didn't even read the article, OR MY POST.

The targets were nowhere near the Village. And I'm sorry, when civilians are supplying the forces with ammunition, picking up guns and engaging our troops, and delivering said ammunition, are they really civilians?

And I would gladly give 10 civilian lives for 1 of our soldiers, but thats just me, I'm a heartless bastard.
 
Last edited:
Ok, you missed the point, NEW RESTRICTIONS resulted a lack in EFFECTIVE ARTILLERY FIRE on targets with no chance of collateral damage. If we blew those suckers up like we were previously allowed to do these great people most likely WOULDN'T HAVE DIED.


Nothing in the article you linked supports that point. The article only states that HE and smoke rounds where not available, but the WP was.
 
Nothing in the article you linked supports that point. The article only states that HE and smoke rounds where not available, but the WP was.

Please read the first 2 lines of the OP's quote
 
Please read the first 2 lines of the OP's quote

We walked into a trap, a killing zone of relentless gunfire and rocket barrages from Afghan insurgents hidden in the mountainsides and in a fortress-like village where women and children were replenishing their ammunition.

"We will do to you what we did to the Russians," the insurgent's leader boasted over the radio, referring to the failure of Soviet troops to capture Ganjgal during the 1979-89 Soviet occupation.

OK, nothing there to support your claim.
 
OK, nothing there to support your claim.

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village.

Are you literally blind to truth?
 
Are you literally blind to truth?

What's the truth? That if we accept high levels of collateral damage and kill a lot of innocent civilians, our troops will be safer?
Nobody's "blind" to that fact. We know it's true.
We just aren't going to do it anymore.
 
Are you literally blind to truth?

I did miss that line. You do appear to be correct. However, there does appear to be a solid reasoning behind such rules: Afghan civilian deaths decline under new U.S. tactics -- latimes.com

The toll on civilians has angered Afghanistan's government and poisoned public opinion against the presence of American and allied troops

With those two factors, limiting civilian casualties increases the likelihood of achieving a "win" in Afghanistan, and actually reduce the number of US casualties. The more likely that civilians actively help the Taliban, the more US deaths will occur.

I do apologize for missing the line in your OP, it was my fault for trying to read to fast.
 
God help us when an enemy nation decides to put together an army composed soley of women and children...
 
Feel free to write to the military and tell them how to do their jobs.

I am sure they will give your letter all due consideration.

Iirc, the manual on counter insurgency operations is available online if you desire to understand more. Or if you merely want to talk about how you knw better than they do...
 
What's the truth? That if we accept high levels of collateral damage and kill a lot of innocent civilians, our troops will be safer?
Nobody's "blind" to that fact. We know it's true.
We just aren't going to do it anymore.

The truth is, the welfare of our soldiers, specifically their lives and their morale take priority over any other variable on the battlefield.
 
The truth is, the welfare of our soldiers, specifically their lives and their morale take priority over any other variable on the battlefield.

No. That's not true.
If we're not there to protect innocents, then screw us.
These are soldiers. They are not interested in collaterally killing a bunch of women, children, and old folks so that their jobs can be marginally more risk-free. They're brave; otherwise they wouldn't be soldiers.
They're not there to tear up innocent civilians but to protect them, even if that means their jobs are sometimes riskier and tougher.
 
No. That's not true.
If we're not there to protect innocents, then screw us.
These are soldiers. They are not interested in collaterally killing a bunch of women, children, and old folks so that their jobs can be marginally more risk-free. They're brave; otherwise they wouldn't be soldiers.
They're not there to tear up innocent civilians but to protect them, even if that means their jobs are sometimes riskier and tougher.

You're right, they're not interested in accidentally killing non-combatants, however, they are interested in staying alive, themselves. Nothing will destroy morale quicker than when a leader proves to his men that their lives aren't his number one concern. When morale goes down the toilet, so does a unit's combat effectiveness.
 
You're right, they're not interested in accidentally killing non-combatants, however, they are interested in staying alive, themselves. Nothing will destroy morale quicker than when a leader proves to his men that their lives aren't his number one concern. When morale goes down the toilet, so does a unit's combat effectiveness.

Look, my son will no doubt be there soon, and he's under no illusions that it will be "safe".
He's not looking to make it "safer" for himself by killing civilians.
That wouldn't make it safer anyway; every time we do that, the families of the dead manage to exact vengeance upon our troops.
And frankly, I don't blame them. I'd do the same if I were them.
If the populace isn't on our side, we won't win this war, and we'd better turn tail and run now, while at least some of our troops are still of sound mind and body.
If we're planning to stay, there's no choice but to get the populace on our side... and that doesn't include strong, brave soldiers allowing innocent children to die in their stead, because they're Americans and their lives are therefore somehow worth more. Afghanis, not surprisingly, don't see it that way.
The only way to get them on our side is to assure them that we don't see it that way either.
Only with the people on our side, can we accomplish anything that resembles a "victory".
 
But innocent civilians, including children and the elderly, would've.
And that's unacceptable.

With a son who is about to stand on the safe end of the M16, you may want to learn a bit more about what is going on with your military. The problem is that non-military types continue to force their ideas of what war is upon those who actively engage in war.

It is horribly laughable when people complain about how civilian deaths are unnaceptable as if the military should be doing something better than what they already do. Our government has spent billions perfecting precision guided missiles for the expressed goal of landing explosives with pin point accuracy upon our enemy while minimizing colllateral damage. We have placed our own troops in harms way to minimize collateral damage when we could simply pull back and bring in the steel rain effectively destroying everyone. But this isn't good enough for some.

For some, the preach is more important than any civilian they pretend to care about. In the end, their whining and complaining only further endangers the civilians.....

- It's these type people that the Bush administration was afraid of when it came to deciding on whether or not to impliment martial law after our military reached Baghdad in 2003. "Such a thing is inhumane." "Who are we to force a certian behavior upon people even on temporary terms?" But what would have been more humane in the end? In the mean time, these false humanitarians would have simply rejoiced in their "moral" victory no matter that it set the stage for whole sale slaughter later.

- Some aren't satisfied with their military on the verge of victory in a battle like Fallujah so they rally behind the media and shed crocodile tears for any civilians caught in the way. And while they are celebrating their "moral" victory because the military pulls out, they remain too stupid to realize that all they did was create a more intense situation and set the stage for more civilian deaths when it is time for Fallujah II.

These are merely two examples on how our civilians set stages for more difficult missions, worse environments, and place out troops in harms way. The media's mission to bring drama to the lives of mundane civilians who can't fathom what war is merely ensures that our struggles will be far more deadlier than they have to be. As a civilization, we have forgotten what it takes to win wars. I have mentioned this before. Since World War II, we have not had a single end game unconditional victory. We have divided nations in half, abandoned people to slaughter, allowed dictators to live, and made the amature's mistake of trying to win wars on the cheap. Some of this is because non-military types believe they can define what victory is. Worse still are the non-military types who have never served, but find themselves dictating the conduct of seasoned veterans who have spent their lives studying war.

Our military knows how to fight and how to fight well. It can deliver a victory in just about any venture just as long our definitions of "victory" remain practical in today's world. And it can do so by limiting the amount of collateral damage while understanding that the idea of "winning hearts and minds" only goes so far because some hearts and minds are simply not winnable. But what it can't do is compete with the media and the couch commandos who haven't the ability to determine when their perfect idea on how to wage war meets the practical reality of how to win wars.
 
Last edited:
Look, my son will no doubt be there soon, and he's under no illusions that it will be "safe".

You don't know that. Not to mention, if he deploys, I'm sure he'll come back home and disagree with you on that point.

He's not looking to make it "safer" for himself by killing civilians.

There's a large difference between collateral damage and actually targetting civilians.
That wouldn't make it safer anyway; every time we do that, the families of the dead manage to exact vengeance upon our troops.

When you refuse a unit supporting fires, while they're in a firefight, then yes, it does make the battlefield more dangerous.

And frankly, I don't blame them. I'd do the same if I were them.

But, you're not. Are you? It's easy to say that when it's not you doing the dieing.

If the populace isn't on our side, we won't win this war, and we'd better turn tail and run now, while at least some of our troops are still of sound mind and body.

If your soldiers aren't on yur side, then you'll lose the war even quicker.


If we're planning to stay, there's no choice but to get the populace on our side... and that doesn't include strong, brave soldiers allowing innocent children to die in their stead, because they're Americans and their lives are therefore somehow worth more. Afghanis, not surprisingly, don't see it that way.

If we're planning to stay, we need to descend upon the enemy with the maximum amount of violence. If a few civilians get wasted, then that's just the nature of warfare.

This whole mentality plays right into the enemy's hands. So much, that he will never start a firefight in a place where there aren't civilians to be killed. Ultimately, this strategy will result in more civilian and American military casualties, not to mention the damage it will do to the morale of American soldiers. It's trully scary to think that there are people in our government that think this a good idea. Too bad we're going to have to wait for history to prove them terribly wrong.
 
The US Military is NOT a police force.

Too bad our soldiers and Marines will have to die for Bobo and his misconception and mishandling of the situation.
 
The truth is, the welfare of our soldiers, specifically their lives and their morale take priority over any other variable on the battlefield.

By that measure, we should just evac the troops and glass the country.

Remember that the soldiers are there to do a job. The restrictions are on them to ensure that we aren't doing this job 50 years from now.

Killing civilians is not the way to get the Afghans to tolerate us.
 
what are the new RoEs for arty? sounds like we're playing right into the hands of the taliban.

If the new RoEs were being "properly" followed in this situation then they need to be seriously reconsidered--preferably by someone who knows what the hell they're doing.

There's no reason steel rain shouldn't have been used:

1. they were pinned down under a high volume of fire, obviously a planned ambush (with probable collusion from the villagers)

2. the point of impact would not have been in the village

3. with CAS down, they had no other option
 
Last edited:
By that measure, we should just evac the troops and glass the country.

Remember that the soldiers are there to do a job. The restrictions are on them to ensure that we aren't doing this job 50 years from now.

Killing civilians is not the way to get the Afghans to tolerate us.

no civilians would've been killed in this situation, arty should have been employed.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom