Page 9 of 21 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 206

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

  1. #81
    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

    How long do we have to stay and how many die to keep, the Taliban from winning a propaganda victory?...and why should, we commit more troops, if we have no good options in A-stan??

  2. #82
    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 ric27 View Post
    How long do we have to stay and how many die to keep, the Taliban from winning a propaganda victory?...and why should, we commit more troops, if we have no good options in A-stan??
    Because some of us don't want to have our kids join the military - just so they can do this same exact **** all over again.

    Everyone said things in Iraq would go on forever and that it was pointless - but yet women were able to vote for the first time ever and proudly showed off their ink-dipped fingers as proof, and we've been "officially" out - while still maintaining low numbers as our countries agree is a bit of a necessity for a while.

    Just because you feel content to let the rest of the world battle it out amongst their selves doesn't mean others feel that they should have to.
    Last edited by Aunt Spiker; 06-27-10 at 01:35 PM.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  3. #83
    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 ric27 View Post
    Ya know, when a President like Obama is more interested in socialism than security nothing good will come out of this because Eikenberry and special envoy Holbrooke will still be pulling the strings
    You got to look at it for what it is. And what it is is a good thing. We have a President with absolutely no military experience. But to his defense and unlike President Clinton, he has his hands out of the military cookie jar and relies on good guidance from the right people. Unlike President Bush, he has a good SECDEF who manages correctly. With the supporting cast President Obama has, he can afford to leave military matters in the hands of the practitioners and focus more on social movements. The last thing the military needs is yet another non-experienced politician telling it that he knows "exactly what to do."

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #84
    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
    The ROE are entirely McChrystal's, this is his plan. Obama just appointed him, he doesn't get involved with ROE's or day-to-day operations of the military. This is McChrystal's "win hearts and minds" campaign, which I think is wrong. Petraeus' counterinsurgency plan mainly was to get in the "suicide belts" with regional outposts and payoff the Sunnis. McChrystal even tries to sell the ROE's to privates and convince them of his "win hearts and minds" strategy when he visits the troops, as it said in the Rolling Stone article. The ROE's and the plan are entirely McChrystal's, don't try to blame Obama on this one. The change in ROEs are probably because Petraeus is a more competent commander than McChrystal, and with his juvenile comments I'm not surprised why McChrystal's credibility and competence might be questioned.
    Just clarifying here...

    ROEs are created between the Pentagon and the White House. Far too often they serve political agendas rather than military ones. Our ROEs have largely been screwed up since Vietnam. National image has trumped military needs far too often.
    Last edited by MSgt; 06-27-10 at 02:13 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  5. #85
    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 the makeout hobo View Post
    I'm not sure who you're talking about, no one in the high echelons of government is named Obi.
    Obi-Wan was pretty high. I assume we are talking about the Republic?

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  6. #86
    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
    Because some of us don't want to have our kids join the military - just so they can do this same exact **** all over again.

    Everyone said things in Iraq would go on forever and that it was pointless - but yet women were able to vote for the first time ever and proudly showed off their ink-dipped fingers as proof, and we've been "officially" out - while still maintaining low numbers as our countries agree is a bit of a necessity for a while.

    Just because you feel content to let the rest of the world battle it out amongst their selves doesn't mean others feel that they should have to.
    The mere presence of foreign troops in YOUR backyard would offend the hell out of a you and a hell a lot of people of any nationality and please don't mix Iraq with A-stan. Afghanistan ain't Iraq.

    Just for the sake of the argument, let me ask you this... Why the Afghans havent voted the taliban back into power?

  7. #87
    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 ric27 View Post
    The mere presence of foreign troops in YOUR backyard would offend the hell out of a you and a hell a lot of people of any nationality and please don't mix Iraq with A-stan. Afghanistan ain't Iraq.

    Just for the sake of the argument, let me ask you this... Why the Afghans havent voted the taliban back into power?
    Oh sure, I can't discuss Iraq because you feel its' irrelevant? I, obviously, disagree with you on that.
    It's ALL relevant - all of it - everything we do in the Middle East is relevant to everything else we do in the Middle East. Gee - imagine that.

    How things went, what happened, why it happened and everything we learned while in Iraq is somehow related, linked, valid or important and relevant to Afghanistan and vise versa.

    And why do you assume that the presence of a foreign military would irritate the hell out of me?
    Why so?
    Give me some situations in which it might happen like that and I'll give you my response. . . you can't just assume you know how I feel and think just because my husband's in the military.

    "Why the Afghans havent voted the taliban back into power"
    Why is this for the sake of argument? I don't see your point - you can't ask me why another country has or hasn't voted for political power which favors a group of some nature in another country . . . when I'm not a citizen of their country - and I don't pretend to know how or what they think.

    What's your opinion on their voting values and reasons?
    Last edited by Aunt Spiker; 06-27-10 at 02:24 PM.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  8. #88
    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
    Just clarifying here...

    ROEs are created between the Pentagon and the White House. Far too often they serve political agendas rather than military ones. Our ROEs have largely been screwed up since Vietnam. National image has trumped military needs far too often.
    No, on this point I think you're wrong.

    New Rules of Engagement issued to NATO Forces by Gen McChrystal | NowPublic News Coverage

    Canadian troops in Afghanistan received new Rules of Engagment on Thursday. The new rules, issued by General McChrystal (ISAF Commander) will prevent troops from shooting at theTaliban, if there is a risk of civilian casualties. The tactical directive highlights that this is the case even if it means to allow the enemy to escape.

    General McChrystal, who was recently appointed by President Obama, issued these orders in the form of a tactical directive.

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

    The directive points out that civilians are the centre of gravity and that everything must be done to gain their support. Colonel Julian a US spokesman for ISAF said that everything must be done to avoid civilian casualties.

    It should be noted that Rules of Engagement (ROE) have to be approved by the Canadian Government. These ROE in all likelihood fall within the parameters of those approved in Canada.

    Here is a Backgrounder of Canada's Participation in ISAF (Known as Operation Athena). It describes the Mission, the Rules of Engagment and Command Relationship.

    As in all foreign led operations, Canada's forces come under operational control, but remains under Command of the Chief of Defence Staff. This system works very well as it permits the Canadian Commander on the ground to refer back to a Canadian commander if he has doubts about orders issued to him by a foreign authority.
    Last edited by Opteron; 06-27-10 at 02:42 PM.

  9. #89
    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 Aunt Spiker View Post
    .....It's ALL relevant - all of it - everything we do in the Middle East is relevant to everything else we do in the Middle East. Gee - imagine that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    ...What's your opinion on their voting values and reasons?
    Want my opinion? It's too bad if you don't because this is how I roll...

    The Afghani people, as screwed up and divided as they are, don't want to see the Tali-Ban back in power anymore than the Iraqi people, as screwed up and divided as they are, wanted to see another Saddam Hussein. This is the one thing they will all agree on.

    I bolded your above statement, because it is more profound than many around here seem to know. It is all relevent. Everything between Cairo and Islamabad, and Riyadh and Istanbul is relevent to each other. We are dealing with a very huge problem even more confusing and effort driven than the World Wars. The entire region is a powder keg waiting to be ignited. All it took amongst the "civilized" was an Arch Duke assassination to suck the world into mass destruction and carnage. The Middle East is divided and carved up against history's peacemaker - unified tribes. All the region's violence goes back to divided tribes and the conflicts that rage within their artifical nations. The exportation of terror beyond their unnatural borders is common place. The simple answer to Al-Queda is a base in Saudi Arabia. But the analytical answer is Sunni rage and any means in which to express it, because every single terrorist organization in the region has some sort of anger towards a globalizeing world that infects their wishes to turn back the clock.

    We are essentially in a race against the clock. India has nuclear power and Muslims call it the "Hindu" bomb. Pakistan was allowed nuclear power to balance this with a "Muslim" bomb. Iranians are going to develop the "Shia" bomb if our politiciians continue to manage to deliberate its existence. Saudi Arabia and Egypt will not standby without a "Sunni" bomb. And of course, the Israelis will certainly ensure the existence of the "Jewish" bomb. This is a Cold War that will end with explosions. The less Saddam Husseins, Tali-Bans, Ahmenedejeds, and House of Sauds that exist the better. Democracies get along with democracies. The greatest fear about Pakistan is that their democracy outright fails and the wrong oppressive and abusive elements come to power with the ability to hand out nuclear material, recipes, and projects to their friends. What do we do with those nations that are already oppressive and abusive and breeding & funding friends?

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  10. #90
    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
    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....

    "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."


    These are politicial strings not only from the Canadian side, but also from the U.S. side. No ROEs are formulated in the field without politician approval and often enough without interjection. Too many civilians getting killed under ROEs? Politicians state as much, replace the General, and new ROEs are made.

    Like I stated, this goes all the way back to Vietnam. In Beirut, Marines weren't allowed to fire back unless given express permission via radio transmission. In Somalia, Marines weren't allowed to fire back unless in designated areas of UN identified sectors (we literally had to lure or chase them them into certain streets). In Bosnia, it was just a mess of contradiction. In Iraq, ROEs were completely ignored everytime our politiciains needed to project an illusion of peace (2004 elections created Fallujah II). In Afghanistan, NATO forces, to include the Army, are upset that Marines are given more free ROEs to wage this war in the South than they.

    We don't get to insist and parade around civilian oversight and then pretend otherwise when it comes time to leave the Generals blowing in the wind over taking absolute responsibility for defining ROEs. Even without interjection, the SECDEF approves. Of course, he can be re-appointed and even elected to higher office. The General gets fired.
    Last edited by MSgt; 06-27-10 at 03:11 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

Page 9 of 21 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •