• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

Aunt Spiker said:
What's a far cry from being PC?
The rules that were put in place?
Or the strategy to win in Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

The rules that where put in place where put in place to win in Afghanistan.
 
Redress said:
The rules that where put in place where put in place to win in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Not everyone is suited for a democratically based system of government. A-stan is simply not compatible with their forever old tribal traditions, lack of education, etc.

A-stan´s culture is way too foreign and unless you are willing to destroy that culture and rebuild it in our image, trying to offer something (usually money) in order to gain an illicit advantage on our way of doing things just hasn't been proven to work.

The Taliban are not stupid people, and they are masters of insurgency and they play the game well.
 
Opteron said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mc Chrystal was commander of US and NATO in Afghanistan

General McCrystal Removed as Commander in Afghanistan - National Security Law Brief

In an article published in Rolling Stone, GEN Stanley McCrystal, former commander of all US and Nato forces in Afghanistan
 
ric27 said:
Not everyone is suited for a democratically based system of government. A-stan is simply not compatible with their forever old tribal traditions, lack of education, etc.

A-stan´s culture is way too foreign and unless you are willing to destroy that culture and rebuild it in our image, trying to offer something (usually money) in order to gain an illicit advantage on our way of doing things just hasn't been proven to work.

The Taliban are not stupid people, and they are masters of insurgency and they play the game well.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that mostly countries with a population with an older median age and a large middle class do well with a democratic system of government.
By these criteria, Afghanistan couldn't be less suited to it.
 
After things get going steady under Petraeus people are going to be complaining and missing McChrystal.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
After things get going steady under Petraeus people are going to be complaining and missing McChrystal.
Click to expand...

If the war continues to go badly, or worsens, yes. They will.
 
ptif219 said:
As NATO commander NATO had to follow and approve his roe
Click to expand...
I'm not sure on this. But I think that as NATO commander he would be the one approving the ROE and he was the one who created them.
 
Opteron said:
Uh, you have no idea what you're talking about.


That's exactly what I'm saying and that's how it is. Again, how does my own article contradict the "lone gunman theory"? It doesn't. He issued the orders. What part of that don't you get that they are his orders?
Click to expand...

Your argument is fallacious. It assumes that McCrystal is authorized to simply determine such legalities; and it is absurd. You're claiming that because McCrystal replaced his predecessor, on the premise that the replacement was due to the number of civilians being killed, that McCrystal himself constructed the modified ROEs... ROEs are determined by the COMMANDER IN CHIEF... That's a fundamental function of American governance. And one which CAN produce unlimited warfare, or the sort of mamby pamby, psycho-absurdities of trying to win the hearts and minds of the enemy.

What you don't seem to recognize is that the Taliban are CIVILIANS... And like their al Aqaeda comrades, they're adroit in the art of propaganda; and as a result, they're fairly familiar with the basic tenets of guerilla warfare and force multiplying tactics of such insurgencies; part and parcel of such being that civilian insurgencies produce civilian casualties and the natural desire of civilized people is to prevent such casualties, thus natural effectiveness of guerilla insurgencies and the reason that they were outlawed by the international community; as they represent a threat to civilization itself.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
After things get going steady under Petraeus people are going to be complaining and missing McChrystal.
Click to expand...

That's very true. But those people will be the Taliban and those whose political position is in line with the Taliban and other anti-American elements of the species. And as a general rule, American's do not and should not lend much credence to the feelings of those determined to destroy them. Nature's policy on such is that doing so, is extinction.
 
PubliusInfinitu said:
That's very true. But those people will be the Taliban and those whose political position is in line with the Taliban and other anti-American elements of the species. And as a general rule, American's do not and should not lend much credence to the feelings of those determined to destroy them. Nature's policy on such is that doing so, is extinction.
Click to expand...

Civilian casualities will go up - people will complain.
More questionable combat situations will arrise - people will complain.

I'm referring to our citizens - not the Taliban . . . but you made a good point.
 
Opteron said:
I'm not sure on this. But I think that as NATO commander he would be the one approving the ROE and he was the one who created them.
Click to expand...

So the countries whose soldiers have to follow this have no say?
 
PubliusInfinitu said:
Your argument is fallacious. It assumes that McCrystal is authorized to simply determine such legalities; and it is absurd. You're claiming that because McCrystal replaced his predecessor, on the premise that the replacement was due to the number of civilians being killed, that McCrystal himself constructed the modified ROEs... ROEs are determined by the COMMANDER IN CHIEF... That's a fundamental function of American governance. And one which CAN produce unlimited warfare, or the sort of mamby pamby, psycho-absurdities of trying to win the hearts and minds of the enemy.
Click to expand...
Uh, you're totally wrong on this point. The president is not a military expert, he is not able to create rules of engagement, he doesn't know about the military formalities of rules of engagement. Someone who does know about rules of engagement and is a professional in this area and would be able to create these rules is the ISAF commander, or General McChrystal. ROEs were not determined by the Commander in Chief in this case. In case you're still a doubter, I have evidence that will shut the case closed and I will post it in the next post. You have no piece of evidence saying that Obama created these ROEs, yet you somehow claim that they were created by him, and you're trying to tell me I'm wrong. While Obama may have chosen McChrystal because his strategy is aligned with what Obama wants, there's no evidence saying that Obama told him what ROE to create or even on specifics on how to run the mission.

PubliusInfinitu said:
That's a fundamental function of American governance. And one which CAN produce unlimited warfare, or the sort of mamby pamby, psycho-absurdities of trying to win the hearts and minds of the enemy
Click to expand...
I hope you don't mind bashing General McChrystal when you talk of "mamby pamby, psycho-absudities of trying to win the hearts and minds of the enemy" because that is his strategy, and even that phrasing of "win the hearts and minds of the enemy" is his.
 
Last edited:
Opteron said:
Uh, you're totally wrong on this point. The president is not a military expert, he is not able to create rules of engagement, he doesn't know about the military formalities of rules of engagement. Someone who does know about rules of engagement and is a professional in this area and would be able to create these rules is the ISAF commander, or General McChrystal. ROEs were not determined by the Commander in Chief in this case. In case you're still a doubter, I have evidence that will shut the case closed and I will post it in the next post. You have no piece of evidence saying that Obama created these ROEs, yet you somehow claim that they were created by him, and you're trying to tell me I'm wrong. While Obama may have chosen McChrystal because his strategy is aligned with what Obama wants, there's no evidence saying that Obama told him what ROE to create or even on specifics on how to run the mission.


I hope you don't mind bashing General McChrystal when you talk of "mamby pamby, psycho-absudities of trying to win the hearts and minds of the enemy" because that is his strategy, and even that phrasing of "win the hearts and minds of the enemy" is his.
Click to expand...

The commander in chief is still resposible for the conduct and rules of the military
 
In case there are still any doubters as to whether or not General McChrystal created the ROE or not, heres sworn testimony that General McChrystal was not told what ROE to create by anyone else:

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.
Click to expand...

These are the General's own words under oath stating that NO ONE TOLD HIM WHAT ROE TO CREATE. You guys are ridiculous, you have no evidence stating that the President created these ROE's, yet you make up claims which are not true and still want to doubt and doubt.
 
ptif219 said:
The commander in chief is still resposible for the conduct and rules of the military
Click to expand...
The Commander in Chief is responsible for how the military campaign is going. The Commander in Chief outlines the mission to the military, and its the military's job to carry out the mission. It is not the Commander in Chief's responsibility to dictate how the military carries out that mission, nor interfere with details and the inner workings of the military when they carry out this mission. The Commander in Chief has general responsibility for the entire mission, but in the military, I believe people do not interfere with people's commands even if they are subordinates, unless necessary. The Commander in Chief has responsibility for how McChrystal is doing, but any operations or military commands are the responsibility of McChrystal, because he is the commander of the operation. That is why Obama has replaced McChrystal with Petraeus now.
 
Last edited:
Opteron said:
In case there are still any doubters as to whether or not General McChrystal created the ROE or not, heres sworn testimony that General McChrystal was not told what ROE to create by anyone else:

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



These are the General's own words under oath stating that NO ONE TOLD HIM WHAT ROE TO CREATE. You guys are ridiculous, you have no evidence stating that the President created these ROE's, yet you make up claims which are not true and still want to doubt and doubt.
Click to expand...

The president as commander in chief is still responsible for these rules
 
Opteron said:
The Commander in Chief is responsible for how the military campaign is going. The Commander in Chief outlines the mission to the military, and its the military's job to carry out the mission. It is not the Commander in Chief's responsibility to dictate how the military carries out that mission, nor interfere with details and the inner workings of the military when they carry out this mission. The Commander in Chief has general responsibility for the entire mission, but in the military, I believe people do not interfere with people's commands even if they are subordinates, unless necessary. The Commander in Chief has responsibility for how McChrystal is doing, but any operations or military commands are the responsibility of McChrystal, because he is the commander of the operation. That is why Obama has replaced McChrystal with Petraeus now.
Click to expand...

The president is resposible for what his commanders do. To say he has no responsibility is like saying a CEO is not responsible for quality of his companies product
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom