Page 10 of 21 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 206

Thread: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

  1. #91
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitu View Post
    The ROEs in Afghanistan that US troops have been saddled with since the Hussein Regime took power, are criminal.


    My oldest son is a Recon Marine who just finished a tour in Afghanistan and they lost three men in their team as a direct result of the limitations which prevented them from engaging the Taliban.

    It's impossible to say how many US sons, fathers, uncles and friends have died as a result of these ridiculous Rules of Engagement.

    For instance, US troops cannot detain anyone that isn't armed at the point of contact. So, where US troops are engaged by a sniper, they determine that the sniper's hide is in a given building. They enter the building and meet an indigenous person leaving the building, but they're not armed. US forces cannot detain that individual.

    Now the Taliban and their Al Qaeda comrades know what US ROEs are, and as a result, they ambush US forces, then quickly stash their weapons, knowing that US Forces cannot do a thing to them, beyond simply stop and question and release them .


    It's CRIMINAL!
    Maybe you missed this, but Saddam Hussien was executed.

    You are seriously confused about RoE's. They serve a purpose, even when they make the job of soldiers more difficult. There is more to any war than killing all the bad guys unfortunately.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #92
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    10-29-17 @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,684

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    There wasn't an attack. There was a statement of fact.

    I am happy to see the troops be able to fight. They didn't like the existing rules of engagement. Some were so despondent they did not feel they were winning.

    This is good news.
    Now, will he ask for more troops and will Obama agree?

    .
    The very reason Nato or the US is losing this war is because from the beginning they did not care for the life of civilians. Afghan's were well ready to be rid of the Taliban but the killing of civilians sent them back to it.

    McChrysler had the right idea if a bit late.

    I think you will probably see the UK leaving soon if you are just going to be playing kill Taliban for the next 20 years and kill civilians 10 or more for each Taliban and 100 more civilians becoming Taliban for each killed. McChrysler was looking for a political solution. Do not know if he was too late after all that killing and disrespect for the life of civilians

    but sorry Obama but if you are going back into killing fields, I think the UK will be coming out.
    George Monboit "Neoliberalism is inherently incompatible with democracy, as people will always rebel against the austerity and fiscal tyranny it prescribes. Something has to give, and it must be the people. This is the true road to serfdom: disinventing democracy on behalf of the elite."

  3. #93
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Maybe you missed this, but Saddam Hussien was executed.

    You are seriously confused about RoE's. They serve a purpose, even when they make the job of soldiers more difficult. There is more to any war than killing all the bad guys unfortunately.
    I'm trying to speak for her, but I think what she is wanting to say is that our ROE's have a history of catering to political image rather than military necessity at times.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #94
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    01-17-15 @ 02:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    629

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    I don't understand where I'm wrong. It's right there in your own article. Your article states that the General issued the ROE. This never means that they were all developed purely by a General. Further in your article it states....
    These are his ROE's not anyone else's. If they were developed by the Pentagon, they would be issued by the Pentagon, not by General McChrystal. No one handed these down to him, this is his strategy and his rules. He didn't have to issue these ROE's, but he did. To say that he issued them, but they weren't his, is stretching it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Further in your article it states....

    "General Stanley McChrystal was appointed to replace General Kearney, amids criticism of too many civilians being killed in Afghanistan."

    "It should be noted that Rules of Engagement (ROE) have to be approved by the Canadian Government."
    This is just background info of the article, it doesn't work to prove any point. Of course they have to be approved by the Canadian government, because it's a different country. They have to make sure any orders that are given to them are legal first. And when they mean Canadian government they mean the proper military channels, whatever they have.

  5. #95
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    I'm trying to speak for her, but I think what she is wanting to say is that our ROE's have a history of catering to political image rather than military necessity at times.
    In the modern wars(say from 2000 on, possibly longer), politics is a part of the overall strategy to win. Yes, RoEs serve a political purpose, but that purpose is to help win the war. Now, as I said earlier, I am not nearly knowledgeable or experienced enough to know if they are the best choice to win the war, but it's not to be a treehugger or such ****.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #96
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    Quote Originally Posted by alexa View Post
    The very reason Nato or the US is losing this war......
    I hate it when you people parade around "losing." It's the same crap that went on over Iraq. Of course, none of the doom sayers came back after the fact and acknowledged how wrong they were. It will be the same for Afghanistan. We can't lose in Afghanistan anymore than we could have lost in Iraq. In the end, we will leave and they will either succeed or fail. Our mission has never been more than ridding ourselves of the antagonizer and setting the population on the right path. Where they go is up to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by alexa View Post
    ...but sorry Obama but if you are going back into killing fields, I think the UK will be coming out.
    ROEs are not black and white. You are assuming severity. Let's not forget that McChrystal's plan came largely from the Patraeus/Mattis handbook.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  7. #97
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    In the modern wars(say from 2000 on, possibly longer), politics is a part of the overall strategy to win. Yes, RoEs serve a political purpose, but that purpose is to help win the war.
    True, but this is only because we have made it so thanks largely to a demand to preserve an illusion of ourselves in the drama hungry media. Fallujah II, which was criticized by many as being too hard and vicious, was a result of politiciains screwing around with our ROEs in an election year (Bush/Kerry) and stealing Fallujah I from us. Politics should never take the heart of our ROEs at the expense of military victory and success. They go too far. There have been Marines killed in Afghanistan because Army air was prohibited from attacking aggressers without Drone confirmation of enemy forces. In these cases, the politicians demand for less civilian casualties motivated ROEs that demanded visual "tower" confirmation rather than radio transmission from the ground. This takes the Beirut ROEs and uber ****s them.

    These are not ROEs that come purely from a military mind. The Army would have gladly flown tothe rescue of Marines as much as they wouldtheir own soldiers (which have beenkilled for similar reasons). Political image back home does this. In the end, the enemy merely gets reprieves and the people we try not to kill merely get to go on under their abuse. What are we really achieving politicilly except a Western good image far removed from the fight? It satisfies the media, but ensures a lingering longer lasting conflict where troops and civilians pay the price.

    No one in Washington knows this culture better than the military. President Clinton's lack of experience urged him to make the regional commanders politicil diplomats with their region's governmnets. This made sense because many of these governments leaders were former military leaders that worked with our commanders anyway. Our military commanders understand the politicial gains inside our ROEs. Politicians just want credit and control. What's the point of a SECDEF if others interject anyway?
    Last edited by MSgt; 06-27-10 at 03:44 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  8. #98
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    10-29-17 @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,684

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    I hate it when you people parade around "losing." It's the same crap that went on over Iraq. Of course, none of the doom sayers came back after the fact and acknowledged how wrong they were. It will be the same for Afghanistan. We can't lose in Afghanistan anymore than we could have lost in Iraq. In the end, we will leave and they will either succeed or fail. Our mission has never been more than ridding ourselves of the antagonizer and setting the population on the right path. Where they go is up to them.



    ROEs are not black and white. You are assuming severity. Let's not forget that McChrystal's plan came largely from the Patraeus/Mattis handbook.
    Given that the Afghan people wanted to get rid of the Taliban and believed they could do it themselves in a few months, yes you are losing and that loss is a direct result of unnecessary civilian deaths.

    The Afghan war is not popular in the UK and on McCrysler's dismissal a general feeling was that if policy changed we would just come out like the Canadians have before us. The hope was that because of McChryslers links with Patraeus, he might carry on in a similar way.

    Unless utmost care is taken of the lives of Afghan's I think you will need to kill almost them all before you have 'won'

    I read the article. If you are just going to shoot when there are civilians around without a care for killing them, then I think you will find, we are out because that will go on and on.

    Afghanistan is not Iraq, It's history is different. It's people too. McChrsler had imo the right approach if any approach can now end the turmoil in the country and leave it Taliban free.
    Last edited by alexa; 06-27-10 at 03:58 PM.
    George Monboit "Neoliberalism is inherently incompatible with democracy, as people will always rebel against the austerity and fiscal tyranny it prescribes. Something has to give, and it must be the people. This is the true road to serfdom: disinventing democracy on behalf of the elite."

  9. #99
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    True, but this is only because we have made it so thanks largely to a demand to preserve an illusion of ourselves in the drama hungry media. Fallujah II, which was criticized by many as being too hard and vicious, was a result of politiciains screwing around with our ROEs in an election year (Bush/Kerry) and stealing Fallujah I from us. Politics should never take the heart of our ROEs at the expense of military victory and success. They go too far. There have been Marines killed in Afghanistan because Army air was prohibited from attacking aggressers without Drone confirmation of enemy forces. In these cases, the politicians demand for less civilian casualties motivated ROEs that demanded visual "tower" confirmation rather than radio transmission from the ground. This takes the Beirut ROEs and uber ****s them.

    These are not ROEs that come purely from a military mind. The Army would have gladly flown tothe rescue of Marines as much as they wouldtheir own soldiers (which have beenkilled for similar reasons). Political image back home does this. In the end, the enemy merely gets reprieves and the people we try not to kill merely get to go on under their abuse. What are we really achieving politicilly except a Western good image far removed from the fight? It satisfies the media, but ensures a lingering longer lasting conflict where troops and civilians pay the price.
    Except you are seeing RoEs for domestic politics, which I do not believe is the case. They serve a foreign policy purpose, which is legit.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #100
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    These are his ROE's not anyone else's. If they were developed by the Pentagon, they would be issued by the Pentagon, not by General McChrystal. No one handed these down to him, this is his strategy and his rules. He didn't have to issue these ROE's, but he did. To say that he issued them, but they weren't his, is stretching it.
    You do not know what you are talking about. This is exactly how it works. Whether the Pentagon or an individual issues them, they come from a group of military and civilian thinkers. These thinkers involve foriegn policy and White House concerns as well as military tactic. All ROEs are issued by an individual or the Pentagon. Either way, the process is the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    This is just background info of the article, it doesn't work to prove any point....... Of course they have to be approved by the Canadian government, because it's a different country.
    Oh, c'mon. Take another look at what you are writing. So....an American General must have "his" ROEs approved by a foriegn government, but not the American government? The ROEs satisfied the demands of the political house and then they were issued. Ignoring the obvious piece of your article that suggests the truth as mere "background info" to place words on paper is highly selective in protecting your stage.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

Page 10 of 21 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •