Page 11 of 21 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 206

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

  1. #101
    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
    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?
    If ROE's are political tools only, why is Petraeus going to relax them and McChrystal was tightening them? How is it that a change in commanders can change the ROE's? It's still the same administration, the same political leaders are there. The leaders may request things from their commanders, but the ROEs in this case were made by the commander, in this instance McChrystal.

  2. #102
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

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

    Quote Originally Posted by alexa View Post
    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 lost is a direct result of unnecessary civilian deaths.
    ....but we were "losing" Iraq too, remember? Move on and analyze it correctly. The Afghani people and their complete lack of military organization would be under Tali-Ban rule today with Al-Queda playing Scrabble in the next room. Of course, then you'd be parading around how we "lost."


    Quote Originally Posted by alexa View Post
    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.
    Well, WWII in Europe wasn't popularinthe U.S. either, but we did our job and followed upon our responsibilities. That being stated, it has never been U.S. policy to "just shoot when their are civilians." This is foolish and unconstructive. We spend billions perfecting precision bombing. We spend an enormous amount of time on markmanship. But in the end, civilians are going to be killed. The only question civilians seem to evade in every war is....shall we get it over with and end this war, which saves more lives in the end, or should we linger the death along and cause unnecessary death in order to support an illusion that civilians are being saved.

    Quote Originally Posted by alexa View Post
    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.
    His approach was taken out of the Patraeus/Mattis handbook. Didn't I already tell you this? What are you thinking is going to change other than a quicker end to this war?

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  3. #103
    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
    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.
    Where is your evidence that the ROE's came from anyone other than McChrystal? Do you have single shred of evidence that shows they came from someone else? All you have is political conspiracy speculation so far. I have shown you already an article that says they came from McChrystal.


    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    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.
    You're not understanding, McChrystal is the government, he writes the ROEs. He already has the approval of the Sec of Def and President because he is the ISAF commander. When they get approval of the Canadian government, it gets approved by whoever is the Canadian commander. It doesn't need to get approved by the American commander because they were written by the American commander.
    Last edited by Opteron; 06-27-10 at 04:20 PM.

  4. #104
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    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.
    It is often the case. We criticize our foriegn policies constantly for not being able to avoid war (and some for instigating conflict), but our ROEs is supposed to support that mess? Maybe this is the problem. Our foreign policies aren't correct just because a culturally ignorant politician in a suit signs a piece of paper and makes it legit. We like to pretendagainst history that "war is a last resort." We offer our politicians diplomats off the hook for failing and talking themselves into war. And when the fall back on the military, we run to them to find ways to get us out? Or worse, to define how we are to win them while placing social and political obstacles in our path?

    We haven't had any Roosevelts, Pattons and Macarthurs over the last 60 years because we give too much faith to our Mcnamaras, Bush's, and Rumsfelds. Afghanistan will be fixed enough for us to leave, because Patraeus and Mattis are the closest thing we have had to the old leaders since we as a people began looking at suits to find other means to get us out of war rather looking at military leaders to win them. Our ROEs will not change as much as to defy the politician's sense of how to win wars. But they will find a way to make them work in order for us to walk away comfortably.
    Last edited by MSgt; 06-27-10 at 04:16 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  5. #105
    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
    ....but we were "losing" Iraq too, remember? Move on and analyze it correctly. The Afghani people and their complete lack of military organization would be under Tali-Ban rule today with Al-Queda playing Scrabble in the next room. Of course, then you'd be parading around how we "lost."
    Afghanistan started before Iraq and you know what I am talking about. Basically you are trying to change what I am saying.

    Before the invasion, the Afghans were organising and had told Afghan Leader Abdul Haq that if he gave him the nod and the wink they would move on the Taliban. The Taliban themselves were a foreign unit created with US knowledge during the Soviet occupation. Abdul Haq was known to be one of the very few if not the only person capable of uniting the Afghan tribes. He warned the US that going in with bombs and killing civilians would be the very thing to put people back on the side of the Taliban.

    Bush ignored everything he said and allowed him to be killed under suspicious circumstances, leaving no natural leader for Afghanistan, just the US puppet who himself now seems to favour the Taliban, something Abdul Haq never did. There is as far as I am aware no one who can now gain the trust of all the Afghan tribes.

    You have been playing footbal with the lives of Afghani's up until McChrysler started seeing them as human beings whose lives should be respected with the hope of gaining their trust so that a political solution could be found.

    For the rest if the intention is what I replied too and as the article seemed to suggest that you are again going to have no respect for the lives of Afghan people then enjoy your killing alone. You may not care for the lives of Afghan people but unlike yourself I believe every life is as valuable as every other.
    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."

  6. #106
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    If ROE's are political tools only, why is Petraeus going to relax them and McChrystal was tightening them? How is it that a change in commanders can change the ROE's? It's still the same administration, the same political leaders are there. The leaders may request things from their commanders, but the ROEs in this case were made by the commander, in this instance McChrystal.
    Well, they aren't political tools "only." I didn't state that. What I stated was that our politicians have a certain image they like to keep and this interferes with military strategy far too often. It gets reflected in our ROEs. I have seen this over and over and over again. President Obama, as much as we so love him, is not the lone exception over the past 65 years.

    And you are absolutely, 100% wrong in regards to the ROEs being a solo act. There is no military commander alive in any culture that would allow troops in the field to suffer by grounding air support over the possible loss of civilains in the vicinity. This is White House prescription to conduct a war with as little media attention as possible. Patraeus has gotten the same guidance, but has the advantage of a White House that has to back off a bit after what just happened. YOu have heard that ROEs will change a bit. You are assuming that we are going to start lining civilians up in front of ovens (a bit extreme, but you get my point.)

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  7. #107
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    Where is your evidence that the ROE's came from anyone other than McChrystal? Do you have single shred of evidence that shows they came from someone else? All you have is political conspiracy speculation so far. I have shown you already an article that says they came from McChrystal.
    You showed an article that contradicted your desires that ROEs come from solo individuals in dark rooms without any political oversight. You chose to ignore the part that obviously suggests political oversight. I don't need to have "evidence" into the world I have belonged to for the last 18 years. What I have is common sense and an ability to not produce articles that contradict me. Your article is my "evidence." Commanders develop ROEs that reflect White House political guidance. This is fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    You're not understanding, McChrystal is the government, he writes the ROEs. He already has the approval of the Sec of Def and President because he is the ISAF commander. When they get approval of the Canadian government, it gets approved by whoever is the Canadian commander. It doesn't need to get approved by the American commander because they were written by the American commander.
    No you are not understanding. You are now agreeing with me without even knowing it. You were trying to pass off that American Generals develop ROEs while ignoring any White House guidance, only to seek the approval of foriegn governments. But right here, you state that he already has the approval of the White House. YOu think he was written a blank check? And then sought foriegn governments approval to give to their commanders to approve? Contrary to your belief, American Generals aren't loose cannons. They must weigh military tactics with government political policies. It's the political policy that equates to White House interjection.

    You may as well state that if a General wants the ROEs to reflect the use of nuclear weapons, that the White House has nothing to do with it.
    Last edited by MSgt; 06-27-10 at 04:43 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  8. #108
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    What's your opinion on their voting values and reasons?
    In the first place, the Afghan Arab part in A-stan is much over-rated in my opinion. Taliban is not Arab.

    Now, on the voting.... Did the Afghans have 100% participation in the voting and what was the turn out?

  9. #109
    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
    Well, they aren't political tools "only." I didn't state that. What I stated was that our politicians have a certain image they like to keep and this interferes with military strategy far too often. It gets reflected in our ROEs. I have seen this over and over and over again. President Obama, as much as we so love him, is not the lone exception over the past 65 years.

    And you are absolutely, 100% wrong in regards to the ROEs being a solo act. There is no military commander alive in any culture that would allow troops in the field to suffer by grounding air support over the possible loss of civilains in the vicinity. This is White House prescription to conduct a war with as little media attention as possible. Patraeus has gotten the same guidance, but has the advantage of a White House that has to back off a bit after what just happened. YOu have heard that ROEs will change a bit. You are assuming that we are going to start lining civilians up in front of ovens (a bit extreme, but you get my point.)
    There is a base level of ROEs that are done by the Pentagon, such as don't shoot civilians, but these ROEs that you need a placard for were done by McChrystal. Don't forget, McChrystal closed Burger King too, are you going to blame that on politicians, Obama, pentagon too?

  10. #110
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

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

    Oh, Ric - further my point in my previous post . . . It's absurd to suggest that our situation in Iraq isn't related in any way to our situation in Afghanistan when Petreus played *the* most critical role in Iraq - and now plays the most critical role in Afghanistan.

    If you don't' think he won't use what he learned and knows via Al Qaeda issue and apply it to the Taliban you're fooling yourself.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

Page 11 of 21 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... 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
  •