Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 206

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

  1. #191
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by deltabtry View Post
    I can agree with this, serving in the Marine Corps I do understand that your husband or you can not speak in detail about your husbands duties, as it was with me. Now my brother who served ten years in the Army Green Berets back in the eighties, to this day he will not discuss what he did. Today he works for Raytheon and again he will not discuss what he does there in detail.
    Yep - what happens in theater stays in theater. . .sometimes your only confidants are those who were there and did that, too.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  2. #192
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    Uh, you have no idea what you're talking about.
    Oh really? Perhaps you should figure a few things out before you embarrass yourself further. I may know a thing or two about my profession. I know you have a simple news article and believe you have achieved ultimate wisdom from it (despite the lack of information in it), but you are missing the boat because you have selected that which you can use to further your political liberal argument of shielding the President.

    Clearly he didn't, so he did support the ROEs.
    Oh clearly. That's why he's obviously still in command, huh? Because he supported the White House and their ideas of what to do in this war? I guess his problems stopped at the ROEs, huh? Troops have been killed over these ROEs. Or is this something else about my profession you know better?
    Last edited by MSgt; 07-03-10 at 12:32 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  3. #193
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    These are not NATO ROEs but ISAF ROEs, ISAF is made up of mostly NATO countries though. I wonder who would be in a position to make new ROEs for the mission in Afghanistan, probably the ISAF commander.
    Which will be approved of by the White House after they satisfy the political pressures of the situation.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #194
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    The president as commander in chief is still responsible for these rules
    Oh, no.no. Under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush the Commander-in-Chief would be responsible with the haphazard rules in place. Under Obama, our commanders are rogues and designing their own rules with no oversight.
    Last edited by MSgt; 07-03-10 at 12:28 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  5. #195
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

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

    "Rules of engagement are most often decided upon by commanders and are created to carry out and fall in line with over-arching orders or goals from higher command."

    Rules of engagement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Keeping away from the poppy fields because the cotton production programs have yet to grow to subplant the drug economy in Afghanistan is a higher government level concern.

    Using less drones to accomodate the international complaint of civilian deaths is a higher government level concern.

    Refusing to fly air support over a village becuase of the international complaint of civilian deaths is a higher governmnet level concern.

    Getting drone visual proof of engagement before accepting a radio transmission of contact by a radioman in the field is because of the international complaint of civilian deaths...and is a higher level government concern.


    All of these things and more creep into our ROEs and they are not because of the commander in the field. These are political issues that address "concerns" that our allies have. In the end, it goes back to image and protecting our illusion of it. And no matter what, they come from the White House. The current ROEs go too far to protect image and are hidden under the disguise of winning hearts and minds.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  6. #196
    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
    Which will be approved of by the White House after they satisfy the political pressures of the situation.
    Where is your evidence of this? Do you have anything to support your claims? Or do you just believe things to be true that you want to believe them the way you want them to be. Wishing things to be true doesn't count as what actually happened.

    You just don't give up do you? Even with General McChrystal stating in his own words under oath that he created the ROE, you still have to blame Obama on it. Did you read this article?:

    McChrystal “didn’t get the rules of engagement” or troops he wanted? « The Liberty Tree

    But wait, that’s not all, McChrystal also agreed with a U.S. senator’s statement that he was not “directed” to implement rules of engagement. During a 9 Dec 09, Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, GEN McChrystal was asked by Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), “General McChrystal, the rules of engagement within Afghanistan emphasize minimizing civilian casualties. That was a point you made when you took over, and Admiral Mullen made the same point yesterday at Camp Lejeune.

    “That is based, I think — and let — I don’t want to be presumptuous, but my understanding is based on your experience, your understanding of counterinsurgency warfare, the experience of the — the Soviets before us that it’s not — that you are not directed to do that by anyone, is that correct?”

    And, oh snap, guess what the General answered? “That — that is correct, Senator. I did, before I deployed out, watch the situation going on. So I had formed opinions but got no specific direction."

    The important part of the statement is, “So I had formed opinions but got no specific direction.” He was given no “specific direction” regarding the rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan. HE WAS GIVEN NO “SPECIFIC DIRECTION” REGARDING THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN! So Rush, who has
    never spent a single day in uniform, needs to remember that when he – or his ditto-heads – try to blame the ROE on President Obama.


    Furthermore, Michael Hastings’ 22 June profile of McChrystal in Rolling Stone (the profile that consequently lead to the general’s professional demise), reported that McChrystal advocated “a controversial military strategy known as counterinsurgency” in Afghanistan and that “[i]n the end … McChrystal got almost exactly what he wanted.” Hastings also reported that McChrystal defended the rules of engagement during a question-and-answer session with soldiers, stating in part, “What I’m telling you is, fire costs you. What do you want to do? You want to wipe the population out here and resettle it?” Of course Rush very conveniently avoided any sections of the profile where decisions such as these were made by the general. Instead wanting to blame the President for any and all military decisions made in theater.

  7. #197
    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
    Oh really? Perhaps you should figure a few things out before you embarrass yourself further. I may know a thing or two about my profession. I know you have a simple news article and believe you have achieved ultimate wisdom from it (despite the lack of information in it), but you are missing the boat because you have selected that which you can use to further your political liberal argument of shielding the President.
    You think because you're in the military you know everything to know about General McChrystal and Obama and creating ROE. Just because you're in the military doesn't make you an expert on everything that happens in the military. You're qualified to speak on what you do day-to-day. You don't have any expertise or any grounds to try to tell what happened between Obama and McChrystal and who created the ROE. That's why you have to read article's that tell what happened to find out what actually happened.

  8. #198
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

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

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    What is odd is Obi said McChrystal followed his orders.
    COIN was a passive response.

    This is not The Obi Plan we had.

    Seems like the problem the foot soldiers complained about is about to result in more dead terrorists.

    .
    You mean dead Afghanistans who may or may not be terrorists. I doubt if any Afghanistan has dog tags or carries any other kind of identification.

    ricksfolly

  9. #199
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

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

    This is not a conventional war, far from it, so Rules of Engagement don't apply. There's no way to pin down the Taliban because they have no set locations, and when they strike, it's hit and run.

    ricksfolly

  10. #200
    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
    Oh, no.no. Under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush the Commander-in-Chief would be responsible with the haphazard rules in place. Under Obama, our commanders are rogues and designing their own rules with no oversight.
    Yup, that's why Obama is not like and is better than his predecessors.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Oh really? Perhaps you should figure a few things out before you embarrass yourself further. I may know a thing or two about my profession. I know you have a simple news article and believe you have achieved ultimate wisdom from it (despite the lack of information in it), but you are missing the boat because you have selected that which you can use to further your political liberal argument of shielding the President.

    Oh clearly. That's why he's obviously still in command, huh? Because he supported the White House and their ideas of what to do in this war? I guess his problems stopped at the ROEs, huh? Troops have been killed over these ROEs. Or is this something else about my profession you know better?
    I await your admission of being wrong anytime now ...

Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 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
  •