Rules Of Engagement Are A Dilemma For U.S. Troops

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.


Rules Of Engagement Are A Dilemma For U.S. Troops : NPR

Click to expand...

How in the blasted heck are we supposed to achieve anything when we have such stupid ROE's as this?


j-mac

I have a friend who is some kind of special ops guy, he says it has been a problem since day one....

Partisan said:

I have a friend who is some kind of special ops guy, he says it has been a problem since day one....

Click to expand...

It's foolish, and makes dear leaders words ring hollow when he speaks of going after OBL or AQ. How's he going to do that when he has rules like this in place, and the enemy hides like cowards among the innocent?


j-mac

These rules of engagement are a product of the democratic party and are worse than useless. The really bad part is they'll result in the needless deaths of american service men and women. It's just a crying shame we couldn't have given them the kind of government they deserved instead of the one we have. I once wore the uniform of this country's navy. That's not something I'd do for the present democratic party regime.

We just tried three of our finest soldiers for giving a terrorist a bloody lip.

We are no longer willing to do what is necessary to win a war. We haven't since Nagasaki.

WRONG

The rule are from Karsai not General McCrystal and there are 12 in all. however good luck finding a complete list of all 12. I has searched more than 20 sited to locate a complete list to no avail.

NEVER and I mean never trust what you hear on NPR to be either accurate or honest. They clearly blame these rules on the General then use a snippet of an interview to bolster their claim.

Why? I can only speculate that it is to cover the fact that Obama agreed to follow these rules and NPR wants to be able at some point to come back ant point the finger of blame for needless deaths away from Obama.

I know some are going to claim this is a conspiracy theory. BULL SHIITE. This is a typical political maneuver to set the stage for the future.

Here is the only portion of the list I have been able to locate and these 7 are widely reported. We can only guess what other dumb ass rules Obama agreed to.

• No night or surprise searches.

• Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

• ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.

• U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

• U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.

• Only women can search women.

• Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.

As an old hand at political maneuvers and strategy I can assure you that Obama has taken a back seat to Karsai when his course of action at this point should be to dictate to Karsai what the rules are going to be, and that he Karsai are going to live by them or he will be replaced with extreme prodigious.

No nice yes you are right but our troops security should come first. Rules that attempt to limit civilian casualties sound wonderful and make good press but they play into and bolster the strategies of insurgents.

History shows us that and unfortunate fact of war in the last 100 years that civilians die in larger numbers than uniformed troops and it is sad, but it is in part because of dumb ass rule of engagement, lack of total commitment to all out victory and political interference in military matters where politicians need to stay the hell out.

Limited military action is a euphemism for we we don't don't care how many of our people get killed or if we win or cut and run, which is the Democrat track record.

We have pi$$ poor leadership on both sides and down the middle of the isles and in both Houses of Congress.

Democrat Reid puts political one upsmanship ahead of either reality and or the facts.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyDOAmJYFFA"]YouTube- Harry Reid: Iraq War Is Lost[/ame]
With any luck next year after the elections we can say about Reid that he has lost.

Erod said:

We just tried three of our finest soldiers for giving a terrorist a bloody lip.

We are no longer willing to do what is necessary to win a war. We haven't since Nagasaki.

Click to expand...

This is a lie! We are going to try 3 soldiers for lying about their actions in an official investigation, and for obstructing justice. When you start posting honestly, and stop being so over the top dramatic, then maybe people might take you seriously.

I see Mr. Obama and this Congress haven't taken the lesson of Vietnam to heart. You can't micro-manage a war plan and simple. This is a War there should only be the Geneva Accord to follow nothing more.

Scorpion89 said:

I see Mr. Obama and this Congress haven't taken the lesson of Vietnam to heart. You can't micro-manage a war plan and simple. This is a War there should only be the Geneva Accord to follow nothing more.

Click to expand...

The thing about Vietnam was that you had soldiers ripping through villages to kill the enemy, with no regard for innocent villagers. That in turn caused the population to turn on us, making it harder, maybe impossible, to achieve victory in Vietnam.

These new rules of engagement were thought out with the lessons of Vietnam well in mind.

Councilman said:

• No night or surprise searches.

• Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

• ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.

• U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

• U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.

• Only women can search women.

• Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.

Click to expand...

Time to pack our **** and leave. This isn't going to work.

Redress said:

This is a lie! We are going to try 3 soldiers for lying about their actions in an official investigation, and for obstructing justice. When you start posting honestly, and stop being so over the top dramatic, then maybe people might take you seriously.

Click to expand...

And they lied because they were afraid of being charged with a war crime, so he isn't lieing about three servicemen being tried for giving a prisoner a fat lip.

apdst said:

And they lied because they were afraid of being charged with a war crime, so he isn't lieing about three servicemen being tried for giving a prisoner a fat lip.

Click to expand...

So it is ok to lie to an official investigation? It's ok to obstruct justice? If they had not done this, you might have a point, but as is, they are not being prosecuted for giving some one a fat lip.

ScottD said:

The thing about Vietnam was that you had soldiers ripping through villages to kill the enemy, with no regard for innocent villagers. That in turn caused the population to turn on us, making it harder, maybe impossible, to achieve victory in Vietnam.

These new rules of engagement were thought out with the lessons of Vietnam well in mind.

Click to expand...

Thye South Vietnamese population didn't turn on us, unless they were already helping the enemy, which inturn made them the enemy. It's the nature of warfare.

We can't fight this war like Vietnam. We have to fight it like WW2, or get the hell out.

Redress said:

So it is ok to lie to an official investigation? It's ok to obstruct justice? If they had not done this, you might have a point, but as is, they are not being prosecuted for giving some one a fat lip.

Click to expand...

It's ok to make our soldiers so afraid of being charged with a war crime over something chicken**** that they're motivated to lie about it to cover it up rather than come right out and be honest about it?

ScottD said:

The thing about Vietnam was that you had soldiers ripping through villages to kill the enemy, with no regard for innocent villagers. That in turn caused the population to turn on us, making it harder, maybe impossible, to achieve victory in Vietnam.

These new rules of engagement were thought out with the lessons of Vietnam well in mind.

Click to expand...

No the thing about Vietnam was the whole thing would have been over in 66 if LBJ and Congress didn't stick their hands into every mission and let the USAF/US navy Attack up North.

And these new rules weren't thought out they are trying to please the World this si a war you can't have rules of engagement. the only rules that apply to the battle field are the Geneva Accords if those don't apply they it's time that the United States with draws from the Accords.

apdst said:

It's ok to make our soldiers so afraid of being charged with a war crime over something chicken**** that they're motivated to lie about it to cover it up rather than come right out and be honest about it?

Click to expand...

Keep making excuses for soldiers breaking the law, and military regulations. It is pathetic, and sad.

Redress said:

So it is ok to lie to an official investigation? It's ok to obstruct justice? If they had not done this, you might have a point, but as is, they are not being prosecuted for giving some one a fat lip.

Click to expand...

Do you have actual proof that they lied to an official, I have yet to read any of the charges and the Pentagon hasn't filed them in open court yet. So everything we are hearing and reading is just hearsay.

Redress said:

Keep making excuses for soldiers breaking the law, and military regulations. It is pathetic, and sad.

Click to expand...

Get a grip, you're going way off topic.

Scorpion89 said:

Do you have actual proof that they lied to an official, I have yet to read any of the charges and the Pentagon hasn't filed them in open court yet. So everything we are hearing and reading is just hearsay.

Click to expand...

Redress isn't going to let the lack of any real evidence stand in her way of knowing what really happened.

Scorpion89 said:

Do you have actual proof that they lied to an official, I have yet to read any of the charges and the Pentagon hasn't filed them in open court yet. So everything we are hearing and reading is just hearsay.

Click to expand...

The charges for all three include lying(I forget the exact wording) and for I think it is 2 of the 3(might be 1, definitely not all 3) obstruction of justice.

Redress said:

The charges for all three include lying(I forget the exact wording) and for I think it is 2 of the 3(might be 1, definitely not all 3) obstruction of justice.

Click to expand...

Care to address the rules of engagement? It is the topic-n-all.

As mentioned earlier, several of these Rules of Engagement go back well into the George W. Bush days and do make sense. We are not there as conquering heroes, we are there attempting to buy time for the Afghanistan government to stabilize and be able to take over their own security.

Yes some of the rules are pretty outlandish. But these are rules that make the Afghanistan people/government appear to be in control. These are rules that have been signed off by our politicians - both Republican and Democrat. It falls under the category of diplomacy. Whether they have been wise is something else altogether.

carlkay58 said:

As mentioned earlier, several of these Rules of Engagement go back well into the George W. Bush days and do make sense. We are not there as conquering heroes, we are there attempting to buy time for the Afghanistan government to stabilize and be able to take over their own security.

Yes some of the rules are pretty outlandish. But these are rules that make the Afghanistan people/government appear to be in control. These are rules that have been signed off by our politicians - both Republican and Democrat. It falls under the category of diplomacy. Whether they have been wise is something else altogether.

Click to expand...

We're there to destroy the enemy and win with as little loss of American life as possible. These ROE won't accomplish that. Time to get out.

That is definitely an option that should be explored. If you agree to ROE that limit you to such an extent that you cannot function then you should pull out. And that I agree with.

Councilman said:

• No night or surprise searches.

• Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

• ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.

• U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

• U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.

------

• Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.

Click to expand...

We might as well carry out our missions without any ammunition....this is absurd.

• Only women can search women.

Click to expand...

This has been part of the ROE since the get go....While I was in Iraq 2005-2006 we were told it was a big no no for a man to search a woman.