• 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

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 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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
I don't agree with the "win hearts and minds" strategy of McChrystal's at all. I believe that no matter what we do there will always be a core minority of people who hate us and no matter how much you restrict our ROE's, it's not going to make a difference. The correct strategy should be to pump out massive amounts of Afghani troops and let them do the fighting and move our troops to a support role only. I just hope Petraeus figures stuff out and does the right thing whatever it is.
 
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 ROEs in Afghanistan that US troops have been saddled with since the Hussein Regime took power, are criminal.


My oldest son is a Recon Marine who just finished a tour in Afghanistan and they lost three men in their team as a direct result of the limitations which prevented them from engaging the Taliban.

It's impossible to say how many US sons, fathers, uncles and friends have died as a result of these ridiculous Rules of Engagement.

For instance, US troops cannot detain anyone that isn't armed at the point of contact. So, where US troops are engaged by a sniper, they determine that the sniper's hide is in a given building. They enter the building and meet an indigenous person leaving the building, but they're not armed. US forces cannot detain that individual.

Now the Taliban and their Al Qaeda comrades know what US ROEs are, and as a result, they ambush US forces, then quickly stash their weapons, knowing that US Forces cannot do a thing to them, beyond simply stop and question and release them .


It's CRIMINAL!
 
My oldest son is a Recon Marine who just finished a tour in Afghanistan and they lost three men in their team as a direct result of the limitations which prevented them from engaging the Taliban.
Click to expand...

Three out of how many total, if I may ask?
 
My only thought on Petraeus is that it will be very interesting to see him and Obama butt heads - sadly - Pat is more of a stickler for secrecy and quelled communication. He won't be open about his thoughts like McChrystal - so we won't hear it as much.

But they'll be bucking around like Rams on a mountainside.
 
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??
 
ric27 said:
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??
Click to expand...

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:
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...

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."
 
Opteron said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Aunt Spiker said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
ric27 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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:
MSgt said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
.....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.
Click to expand...
Aunt Spiker said:
...What's your opinion on their voting values and reasons?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Opteron said:
No, on this point I think you're wrong.

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

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:
PubliusInfinitu said:
The ROEs in Afghanistan that US troops have been saddled with since the Hussein Regime took power, are criminal.


My oldest son is a Recon Marine who just finished a tour in Afghanistan and they lost three men in their team as a direct result of the limitations which prevented them from engaging the Taliban.

It's impossible to say how many US sons, fathers, uncles and friends have died as a result of these ridiculous Rules of Engagement.

For instance, US troops cannot detain anyone that isn't armed at the point of contact. So, where US troops are engaged by a sniper, they determine that the sniper's hide is in a given building. They enter the building and meet an indigenous person leaving the building, but they're not armed. US forces cannot detain that individual.

Now the Taliban and their Al Qaeda comrades know what US ROEs are, and as a result, they ambush US forces, then quickly stash their weapons, knowing that US Forces cannot do a thing to them, beyond simply stop and question and release them .


It's CRIMINAL!
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed this, but Saddam Hussien was executed.

You are seriously confused about RoE's. They serve a purpose, even when they make the job of soldiers more difficult. There is more to any war than killing all the bad guys unfortunately.
 
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...

The very reason Nato or the US is losing this war is because from the beginning they did not care for the life of civilians. Afghan's were well ready to be rid of the Taliban but the killing of civilians sent them back to it.

McChrysler had the right idea if a bit late.

I think you will probably see the UK leaving soon if you are just going to be playing kill Taliban for the next 20 years and kill civilians 10 or more for each Taliban and 100 more civilians becoming Taliban for each killed. McChrysler was looking for a political solution. Do not know if he was too late after all that killing and disrespect for the life of civilians

but sorry Obama but if you are going back into killing fields, I think the UK will be coming out.
 
Redress said:
Maybe you missed this, but Saddam Hussien was executed.

You are seriously confused about RoE's. They serve a purpose, even when they make the job of soldiers more difficult. There is more to any war than killing all the bad guys unfortunately.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to speak for her, but I think what she is wanting to say is that our ROE's have a history of catering to political image rather than military necessity at times.
 
MSgt said:
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....
Click to expand...
These are his ROE's not anyone else's. If they were developed by the Pentagon, they would be issued by the Pentagon, not by General McChrystal. No one handed these down to him, this is his strategy and his rules. He didn't have to issue these ROE's, but he did. To say that he issued them, but they weren't his, is stretching it.

MSgt said:
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."
Click to expand...
This is just background info of the article, it doesn't work to prove any point. Of course they have to be approved by the Canadian government, because it's a different country. They have to make sure any orders that are given to them are legal first. And when they mean Canadian government they mean the proper military channels, whatever they have.
 
MSgt said:
I'm trying to speak for her, but I think what she is wanting to say is that our ROE's have a history of catering to political image rather than military necessity at times.
Click to expand...

In the modern wars(say from 2000 on, possibly longer), politics is a part of the overall strategy to win. Yes, RoEs serve a political purpose, but that purpose is to help win the war. Now, as I said earlier, I am not nearly knowledgeable or experienced enough to know if they are the best choice to win the war, but it's not to be a treehugger or such ****.
 
alexa said:
The very reason Nato or the US is losing this war......
Click to expand...

I hate it when you people parade around "losing." It's the same crap that went on over Iraq. Of course, none of the doom sayers came back after the fact and acknowledged how wrong they were. It will be the same for Afghanistan. We can't lose in Afghanistan anymore than we could have lost in Iraq. In the end, we will leave and they will either succeed or fail. Our mission has never been more than ridding ourselves of the antagonizer and setting the population on the right path. Where they go is up to them.

alexa said:
...but sorry Obama but if you are going back into killing fields, I think the UK will be coming out.
Click to expand...

ROEs are not black and white. You are assuming severity. Let's not forget that McChrystal's plan came largely from the Patraeus/Mattis handbook.
 
Redress said:
In the modern wars(say from 2000 on, possibly longer), politics is a part of the overall strategy to win. Yes, RoEs serve a political purpose, but that purpose is to help win the war.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
I hate it when you people parade around "losing." It's the same crap that went on over Iraq. Of course, none of the doom sayers came back after the fact and acknowledged how wrong they were. It will be the same for Afghanistan. We can't lose in Afghanistan anymore than we could have lost in Iraq. In the end, we will leave and they will either succeed or fail. Our mission has never been more than ridding ourselves of the antagonizer and setting the population on the right path. Where they go is up to them.



ROEs are not black and white. You are assuming severity. Let's not forget that McChrystal's plan came largely from the Patraeus/Mattis handbook.
Click to expand...

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 loss is a direct result of unnecessary civilian deaths.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Opteron said:
These are his ROE's not anyone else's. If they were developed by the Pentagon, they would be issued by the Pentagon, not by General McChrystal. No one handed these down to him, this is his strategy and his rules. He didn't have to issue these ROE's, but he did. To say that he issued them, but they weren't his, is stretching it.
Click to expand...

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.

Opteron said:
This is just background info of the article, it doesn't work to prove any point....... Of course they have to be approved by the Canadian government, because it's a different country.
Click to expand...

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 must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom