Petraeus to Modify Afghanistan Rules of Engagement, Source Says

maybe mcchrystal didn't feel obama was kissing his ass enough.

You, sir, are a horrible person. I admire that about you.

zimmer said:

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.
I wonder if Petraeus will ask for more troops.

.

Click to expand...

The current rules of engagement are resulting in a lot of US military casualties, even as they protect Afghan civilians.
The war has become unpopular, and daily headlines about 10 or 15 more dead American boys are not helping the cause.
If Petraeus can significantly reduce US casualties in Afghanistan, even at the cost of the death of a few more Afghan civilians, he may be able to buy more time- possibly even another troop increase, for this war.

On the other hand, I don't know how long Petraeus will remain in charge.
This may be only a temporary thing, for appearance sake, to get us past the whole McChrystal debacle.
I've heard rumors that he's dying of metastatic prostate cancer.
He's passed out in public on more than one occasion recently, and he does not appear to me to be a well man.

This was not just US troops but NATO. Are you saying McCrystal did not have to get permission for this from other countries?

Goshin said:

General Petraeus is an expert in this kind of warfare. He literally wrote the book on it. Assuming he is given reasonable independence of action, I expect he will do very well and achieve substantial results, though the effects may take time.

Click to expand...

Technically he didn't write it entirely. He had a large amount of experts like former Lt Col. Nagl who did much of the lifting.

Read "Learning how to eat soup with a knife"

Here's his slideshow:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ssi/nagl-panel-apr05.pdf

1069 said:

The current rules of engagement are resulting in a lot of US military casualties, even as they protect Afghan civilians.
The war has become unpopular, and daily headlines about 10 or 15 more dead American boys are not helping the cause.
If Petraeus can significantly reduce US casualties in Afghanistan, even at the cost of the death of a few more Afghan civilians, he may be able to buy more time- possibly even another troop increase, for this war.

On the other hand, I don't know how long Petraeus will remain in charge.
This may be only a temporary thing, for appearance sake, to get us past the whole McChrystal debacle.
I've heard rumors that he's dying of metastatic prostate cancer.
He's passed out in public on more than one occasion recently, and he does not appear to me to be a well man.

Click to expand...

He's passed out in public on more than one occasion recently, and he does not appear to me to be a well man.

Click to expand...

Probably because the General doesn't get any sleep, running a war isn't a 9 to 5 job. I think this would be taxing on anyone who runs a campaign not to mention Patreaus does worry about his troops.

zimmer said:

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?

.

Click to expand...

1069 said:

The current rules of engagement are resulting in a lot of US military casualties, even as they protect Afghan civilians.
The war has become unpopular, and daily headlines about 10 or 15 more dead American boys are not helping the cause.
If Petraeus can significantly reduce US casualties in Afghanistan, even at the cost of the death of a few more Afghan civilians, he may be able to buy more time- possibly even another troop increase, for this war.

Click to expand...

Great plan! Reduce our casualties so we can stay longer... and suffer more casualties!
Longest war in our history. I think we made our point, what the hell are we still doing in that craphole?

The other issue is that every civilian casualty boosts recruitment for the enemy.

ric27 said:

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

Click to expand...

Please show me where he is not interested in security.

ptif219 said:

This started in Iraq. The left wanted more politically correct fighting and the civilians that protect the terrorist are more important than victory.

Click to expand...

Please provide a link from a media source that is not right or left.

TBone said:

Please show me where he is not interested in security.

Click to expand...

TBone come on, ric27 does have a point, look at your own state and the border and immigration issue and what Obama is doing about it.

ptif219 said:

It shows rules of engagement in 2007. This was a continuation of what started in Iraq. Finally Petraeus will untie the hands of our soldiers.

Click to expand...

Excuse my confusion, but what more do you want the troops to do? The list you gave looks good. I have issues with the collateral because the enemy uses this to their advantage, but I understand the rule. After all, if an enemy combatant shoots at us, and runs in the middle of a daycare or school, I do want the children blown up innocent victims.

deltabtry said:

TBone come on, ric27 does have a point, look at your own state and the border and immigration issue and what Obama is doing about it.

Click to expand...

I will give you that when discussing our border and immigration problem, BUT every previous president and congress (democrat and GOP) is responsible for what is happening on our border. I don't agree on the security in Iraq and Afghanistan. If I am wrong, I will apologize. All I want from ric27 is something that shows me I am wrong or he is right.

TBone said:

Excuse my confusion, but what more do you want the troops to do? The list you gave looks good. I have issues with the collateral because the enemy uses this to their advantage, but I understand the rule. After all, if an enemy combatant shoots at us, and runs in the middle of a daycare or school, I do want the children blown up innocent victims.

Click to expand...

Now you also have a point but, wars are won by slaughter and maneuver no two ways around it. Now if this isn't a satisfactory condition for victory, I would say lets not engage in war. We have tried limited warfare since Korea and it has failed every time to achieve it's objective. Now noone wants collateral damage in regards to civilian lives but, we should do has we did in the 1940's and before, allow the civilians to leave in a certain period of time and those who remain will be considered combatants. That said, all wars that have been fought civilians will be the ones that pay the ultimate price and this is why we should fight by all means necessary and end it quickly, this way we are not dragging it out over decades where eventually more civilians will perish.

TBone said:

I will give you that when discussing our border and immigration problem, BUT every previous president and congress (democrat and GOP) is responsible for what is happening on our border. I don't agree on the security in Iraq and Afghanistan. If I am wrong, I will apologize. All I want from ric27 is something that shows me I am wrong or he is right.

Click to expand...

I agree with you about past and present administration turning a blind eye in regards to immigration policy. I can't speak for ric27 but, to me it seems he is pointing out that Obama is more interested in flipping this country into a more socialistic style government than he is about winning the war in the M.E.

My son will be in Afghanistan in 2011.
Whatever makes the troops safer, I'm all for.
That said, an immediate announcement from Petraeus that he plans to make a change which might again result in the deaths of Afghan civilians will only make the mission that much more difficult, if the mission is truly "winning hearts and minds".
I have to say, there seems to be little consensus on what the mission is these days, other than trying to force-feed a corrupt puppet government to an unwilling and terrorized populace.
I honestly believe that the real "mission" is to subdue said populace to the point that we can credibly declare some sort of "victory" or at least "progress", and get the hell out while allowing Obama to save face.
That is my belief today (I'm feeling a little dispirited and disillusioned today, frankly).
So, in the interim, whatever keeps our troops safe(r).
They're currently dying at a rate I'm not very comfortable with.
On the other hand, most of them are dying from IEDs, against which weapons are useless anyway.
So maybe these modified rules of engagement won't effect civilian casualties that much one way or the other, as long as the troops don't go hog wild.

What I feel, today (my feelings change a lot from day to day, given my personal involvement), is that what we're doing there is pointless. It endangers innocent civilians as well as our own enlisted loved ones.
We're "taking over" areas like Marja, and soon Kandahar, but the civilians are under siege from both sides. They cannot take advantage of what we wish to offer them, even if they wanted to, because the Taliban is still there amongst them- the Taliban is, in fact, their own neighbors, brothers, fathers, sons, and husbands- and is threatening to torture and murder anyone who cooperates in any way with the American troops, even to the extent of simply going about their daily lives while the American occupation lasts. And they're not only threatening it, they're actually doing it.
The Afghan civilians aren't retards. They know we're leaving, if not tomorrow or next year then five or ten years from now; someday, at any rate. And they know that they'll still be there, and so will their children, and so will the Taliban. They're doing the only thing they can do: keeping their heads down, and trying to placate two opposing and potentially lethal forces.
It's what any of us would do. it's all anybody could do, in their situation.

Our focus should be on supporting whatever policy gets the least number of American troops and Afghan civilians killed- the least number of people, period- until Obama feels he can declare some marginal, face-saving "victory" and bring our soldiers home.
This will probably not be for many years, but hopefully there will be a significantly lower casualty rate and a troop draw-down (back to pre-surge levels) in the near future. In the very near future, I devoutly hope.

In the 2012 presidential election, I will be voting for whichever candidate seems most likely to end this hideous affair, and so will many other military families.

I find it very interesting that all of a sudden the rules of engagement are under review just after McChrystal resigns. The fact is it was Petraus who was McCrystals boss & who originally designed the counterinsurgency strategy that McChrystal was employing with much the same ROE. My theory is that McChyrstal never decided on the "rules of engagement" and that this was pushed on him by the Obama administration probably with pressure from the commie lawyers over at the ACLU, one of Obamas constituencies. McChystal over time probably saw that there was no way his plan would work with these kind of rules. His pleas to the president & his minions probably fell on deaf ears so he decided to change paths not wanting to preside over a lost war and in the process bring attention to the problem. Falling over the sword for the good of the country so to speak. How else do you explain the timing of the changes in ROE ?

I doubt whether any serious military man (McChrystal or Petraus) would impose rules that would result in more of there own soldiers being killed (especially a special forces guru like McChrystal) so these incredibly restrictive rules must have come from the the civilian leadership & was imposed on the military by someone who knows very little about how to win a war. Have any guess's? Could it possibly be the same guy who wants to impose his will over the banking indusrty, the car companies, the energy sector, ect. ect. ect .

The stench of Obama & the left are all over this one, they griped & griped & griped until they twisted Gates arm enough to impose them, then when they found the results to be not very good for them politically (losing a war) they did a 180. How Ironic how they scorned Petraus when he "Bushes" man but when Obama apponted his own guy and he supposedly failed now we have Bushes man (whom they hated before) replacing him. Anyone see the Irony in this?

Iron Yank said:

I find it very interesting that all of a sudden the rules of engagement are under review just after McChrystal resigns. The fact is it was Petraus who was McCrystals boss & who originally designed the counterinsurgency strategy that McChrystal was employing with much the same ROE. My theory is that McChyrstal never decided on the "rules of engagement" and that this was pushed on him by the Obama administration probably with pressure from the commie lawyers over at the ACLU, one of Obamas constituencies. McChystal over time probably saw that there was no way his plan would work with these kind of rules. His pleas to the president & his minions probably fell on deaf ears so he decided to change paths not wanting to preside over a lost war and in the process bring attention to the problem. Falling over the sword for the good of the country so to speak. How else do you explain the timing of the changes in ROE ?

I doubt whether any serious military man (McChrystal or Petraus) would impose rules that would result in more of there own soldiers being killed (especially a special forces guru like McChrystal) so these incredibly restrictive rules must have come from the the civilian leadership & was imposed on the military by someone who knows very little about how to win a war. Have any guess's? Could it p[ossibly be the same guy who wants to impose his will over the banking indusrty, mthe car companies, the energy sector ect ect ect

The stench of Obama & the left are all over this one, they griped & griped & griped until they twisted Gates arm enough to impose them, then when they found the results to be not very good for them politically (losing a war) they did a 180. How Ironic how they scorned Petraus when he "Bushes" man but when Obama apponted his own guy and he supposedly failed now we have Bushes man (whom they hated before) replacing him. Anyone see the Irony in this?

Click to expand...

Have anything more than your theory?

TBone said:

Please provide a link from a media source that is not right or left.

Click to expand...

There is no such media source

TBone said:

Excuse my confusion, but what more do you want the troops to do? The list you gave looks good. I have issues with the collateral because the enemy uses this to their advantage, but I understand the rule. After all, if an enemy combatant shoots at us, and runs in the middle of a daycare or school, I do want the children blown up innocent victims.

Click to expand...

By time the soldier does all this he is dead. War kills people some are innocent that is war. If the aghans want it stopped then all should go after the Taliban and kick them out.

War needs to be run by soldiers and not politics.

Boo Radley said:

Have anything more than your theory?

Click to expand...

What? do I look like an insider? Whether or not my theory is correct or not what you are hearing out of the administration is not the whole story and my theory is as good & sound as any.

I mean why the change in ROE so fast after McChyrstal leaves? Unless maybe this was the issue all along & not the Rolling stone article, maybe the article was just an excuse to cover the real motive.

Iron Yank said:

What? do I look like an insider? Whether or not my theory is correct or not what you are hearing out of the administration is not the whole story and my theory is as good & sound as any.

I mean why the change in ROE so fast after McChyrstal leaves? Unless maybe this was the issue all along & not the Rolling stone article, maybe the article was just an excuse to cover the real motive.

Click to expand...

I think that in order to pacify the American public, which has grown increasingly disenchanted with this war and is no doubt alarmed by the whole McChrystal debacle and wondering what replacing him will mean in regards to the safety of our troops and the "success" (whatever that's supposed to look like) of our mission, I think it is key that we bring down US casualty rates immediately.
An immediate reduction in the deaths of American soldiers will placate, for awhile, an increasingly agitated public.
All we ever hear about the war anymore is how we're accomplishing nothing (or worse, losing ground), how we're running into delay after delay, and how another American soldier has died today. And another. And another. And three more. And four more. And another.

Unless they can pay off the media to quit reporting this crap, they need to have a day where no American soldiers die in Afghanistan.
In fact, they need a whole bunch of them.
Americans are not going to be content to continue financing this war with our tax dollars, when we don't know why we're even fighting it, and when all we hear in the media is how our own money is being used to fund Al Qaeda and or the Taliban; in effect, that our own tax dollars are being used to kill our children in uniform.
You know, we're not just going to sit here like a bunch of complacent cows when we have to read stuff like this every day.
Present a clear explanation of our objectives are over there, and untie our soldiers' hands so that they can attempt to accomplish it. Or bring them home.

But either way, the alarming spike in the casualty rate needs to cease. It needs to slow down. The media needs to be able to report that it isn't even higher next month. People with loved ones over there need to hear it.

I think that is why the ROE may be modified at this time.
Perhaps- I hope- the recent casualty rate, combined with our failure to accomplish anything worth a damn over there, is unacceptable even to our president and our military brass.
Even if it is acceptable to them, I'm sure they recognize that it's not acceptable to the American public, and that we aren't going to stand for it much longer.
Our soldiers are human beings, beloved fathers and husbands and sons, not walking targets made out of meat.
Let them defend themselves, or let them come home.

TBone said:

All I want from ric27 is something that shows me I am wrong or he is right.

Click to expand...

Hmm...Just to name one. Janet Napolitano. Anita Hill's attorney during her lawsuit against Clarence Thomas and judging from what I've read on her, she has absolutely nothing qualifying her to run the DHS. No military or LE experience

He is willing to sacrifice national security in the name of political expediency.

Iron Yank said:

What? do I look like an insider? Whether or not my theory is correct or not what you are hearing out of the administration is not the whole story and my theory is as good & sound as any.

I mean why the change in ROE so fast after McChyrstal leaves? Unless maybe this was the issue all along & not the Rolling stone article, maybe the article was just an excuse to cover the real motive.

Click to expand...

No, you don't. But too many wildly reach for something as if they were an insider. Shoudln't there be a reasonable standard of needing some evidence to support what you present? And possing another wild leap is only more of the same. If just any silly thing we can think of ok, well, we can all have some fun.

Rules of engagement are a great place to criticize leadership. People don't really understand the why, we all love our troops(even the liberals), so complaining about something that makes things harder for them and increases their risk is easy to do. What people tend to not do is look at the whys involved. In Afghanistan now, and in Iraq before, the overall strategy was not just to kill all the bad guys. It was a part of the strategy, but it was not the whole path to victory. What is also needed is the goodwill of the people and the government. Collateral damage reduces that goodwill. So while more strict RoEs made killing the enemy harder, it also helped in other areas of the overall strategy. Looser RoEs makes killing the enemy easier, but increases collateral damage and makes other aspects of the overall strategy harder. The question is where the balance point is, where things are best overall for victory. I am not a strategy expert, and not qualified to really say, nor is any one posting on these boards(cept maybe Msgt). What we should be doing is, instead of bitching about things we don't have enough information or experience to judge, simply hope that the military leaders who make the decision get it figured out.

zimmer said:

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.
I wonder if Petraeus will ask for more troops.

.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure who you're talking about, no one in the high echelons of government is named Obi.