• 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

alms said:
My brother is in the Marines, and he's been to Iraq and Afghanistan, both as a Scout Sniper and an infantry platoon commander. That doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about as it pertains to military matters. Sure, I can attempt to obtain a superficial understanding of the military but unless I actually go through the experience I'll never move past the surface. That's all I'm trying to say.
Click to expand...

Is your brother your darling son, who means far more to you than your own life, and who just turned 18 years old and is expecting his first child?
No? Then I seriously doubt you're as committed to knowing every single detail you can possibly find out about your brother's living conditions while he's deployed as I currently am.

Also, I'm not so sure you'd be capable of learning as much as me, even if you applied yourself with equal effort and commitment.
 
Opteron said:
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE AT ALL. READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN IT'S POSTED HERE: New Rules of Engagement issued to NATO Forces by Gen McChrystal | NowPublic News Coverage
How in the world does the article contradict the "lone gunman" theory???
Click to expand...


I think I'm done with you. It is you that is suggesting the "lone gunman theory" by suggesting that he alone, without White House political guidance, developed the ROEs. It is you that stated that he alone, issued them to the Canadian government for approval. It has been you that have suggested the he alone is to blame. He issued them as the commander in the field. He did not sit in a dark room allalone and develop ROEs with the White House completely in the dark and without addressed concerns.

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

From your own damn article, it is clear that his arrival had to deal with the image of civilian deaths as well as win this war. Image is a politician's concern and it made its way from the White House into the ROEs. Patraeus will have the same concerns pressuring him from the White House. But Patraeus will not sacrifice troop security or the turn out of this war to a politician's need for image. He will work around it like he did in Iraq.

You do not know what you are talking about.
 
Last edited:
1069 said:
Is your brother your darling son, who means far more to you than your own life, and who just turned 18 years old and is expecting his first child?
No? Then I seriously doubt you're as committed to knowing every single detail you can possibly find out about your brother's living conditions while he's deployed as I currently am.
Click to expand...

I never said you weren't committed, or that I was more committed than you. My point was that no matter how committed you may be, you can never obtain an understanding of the military that is anything but superficial.

And just out of curiosity, what does your son do in the Army?

Also, I'm not so sure you'd be capable of learning as much as me, even if you applied yourself with equal effort and commitment.
Click to expand...

I'm very impressed.
 
alms said:
I never said you weren't committed, or that I was more committed than you. My point was that no matter how committed you may be, you can never obtain an understanding of the military that is anything but superficial.

And just out of curiosity, what does your son do in the Army?



I'm very impressed.
Click to expand...


It's none of your goddamned business what he does.
Your "point" was to suggest, apropos of nothing, that because you don't know jack-****, nobody else is going to be able to learn jack-**** either.

Hopefully, you've now been disabused of this preposterous notion.
 
1069 said:
It's none of your goddamned business what he does.
Click to expand...

Okay then.

Your "point" was to suggest, apropos of nothing, that because you don't know jack-****, nobody else is going to be able to learn jack-**** either.
Click to expand...

I never said I don't know "jack-****", or that you wouldn't be able to learn "jack-****". I said non-military members can never obtain an understanding of the military that is anything but superficial.

My brother and I have spoken at length about military matters, and he's far more experienced than your son, but that doesn't mean I know enough about the military to question or second guess the decisions of a general.

Hopefully, you've now been disabused of this preposterous notion.
Click to expand...

How can I be disabused of a notion I never held?
 
My brother and I have spoken at length about military matters, and he's far more experienced than your son, but that doesn't mean I know enough about the military to question or second guess the decisions of a general.
Click to expand...


Former general.


:2wave:
 
1069 said:
Yeah, I don't understand closing the fast food chains and first-run theaters because "this is a warzone, not an amusement park".
I mean, we allegedly "won" in Iraq, and bases there are a lot larger and more like "an amusement park" than Bagram or any other base in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, my friend recently returned from Afghanistan, and she told me that obesity among soldiers is becoming a major problem over there. Maybe McCrystal just wants them in top physical condition, for their own safety. Top fighting form.
McCrystal himself is a rather spartan individual; one doubts he eats much Burger King.
He allegedly gets up and jogs like ten miles every morning at 5 am, and that's his recreation for the day.
I've heard Petraeus is somewhat similar in his habits, although he is talking about possibly bringing Burger King back... or at least saying he won't rule it out.

Gen. Petraeus Not Ruling Out Bringing Burger King Back To Afghanistan - The Consumerist

Today I feel more optimistic; I think things might get a little better for our troops in Afghanistan under Petraeus.
Several enlisted folks I've talked to are optimistic about the change.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting that. There could be a whole debate about whether closing Burger King was right or not, but I think that the decision was definitely departure from precedent. The decision does has it upsides and also it's downsides, but I think it says something about General McChrystal. I think that General Petraeus might be reversing the decision also says something too.
 
alms said:
An obvious indication that the man is a moron.
Click to expand...

He irrefutably made some very questionable decisions.
Taking away the fast food places may have been one of them.
Time will tell.
If Petraeus brings them back, and morale goes up, and the war starts turning in our favor... then "taking away Burger King" will no doubt go down in history as yet another of McCrystal's missteps. A minor one, comparatively.
 
1069 said:
Well, to his credit, I don't think it was a "brash" decision.
I do think it was an unnecessary one, however.
McCrystal presented it as a supply issue, as if it were a choice between "Burger King or your mail", or "Burger King or ammunition".
I believe, however, that this is a false dichotomy.
There are many supplies trucked in to Afghanistan daily that are not crucial to survival.
If the fast food joints help keep the soldiers' morale up, then I don't see why they shouldn't have them.
Click to expand...
I guess brash is the wrong word to use, I would say it was a unique or different decision, departure from precedent too. My initial feeling when I learned of it was that I opposed it, but I guess Petraeus will sort it out to see what's the best thing to do.

Haha, I need that thesaurus you got.
 
Last edited:
Opteron said:
I guess brash is the wrong word to use, I would say it was a unique or different decision, departure from precedent too. My initial feeling when I learned of it was that I opposed it, but I guess Petraeus will sort it out to see what's the best thing to do.
Click to expand...


It just gives the impression- from a mom perspective- that he's not a nice man. :shrug:

I guess that's the bottom line.
Our troops are enduring so much hardship over there.
Why shouldn't they have whatever little comfort or entertainment is possible during their off time?

It's not that Burger King itself is so important.
I just want someone in charge who cares about the well-being of the troops. Their physical and emotional well-being.
Why make things more lonely and depressing for them than they already are, by taking away these small pleasures?
 
1069 said:
He irrefutably made some very questionable decisions.
Click to expand...

People make "questionable" decisions all the time.

Taking away the fast food places may have been one of them.
Time will tell.
If Petraeus brings them back, and morale goes up, and the war starts turning in our favor... then "taking away Burger King" will no doubt go down in history as yet another of McCrystal's missteps. A minor one, comparatively.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious.
 
1069 said:
It just gives the impression- from a mom perspective- that he's not a nice man. :shrug:

I guess that's the bottom line.
Our troops are enduring so much hardship over there.
Why shouldn't they have whatever little comfort or entertainment is possible during their off time?

It's not that Burger King itself is so important.
I just want someone in charge who cares about the well-being of the troops. Their physical and emotional well-being.
Why make things more lonely and depressing for them than they already are, by taking away these small pleasures?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing. I'm thinking that the food there is probably pretty bad they could use a whopper once in a while. But there's a whole range of debate on this issue, some of it I found here in the comments: FOXNews.com - Goodbye, Burger King: Top U.S. General Orders Closure of Western Comforts in Kandahar. Some say the people in the FOBs don't get whoppers so why should the main base people, but then others say that the FOB people rotate through the main bases so they should have a chance to get food when they get the chance. There's lots of pros and cons, but I think to make that decision was different.
 
MSgt said:
I think I'm done with you. It is you that is suggesting the "lone gunman theory" by suggesting that he alone, without White House political guidance, developed the ROEs. It is you that stated that he alone, issued them to the Canadian government for approval. It has been you that have suggested the he alone is to blame. He issued them as the commander in the field. He did not sit in a dark room allalone and develop ROEs with the White House completely in the dark and without addressed concerns.
Click to expand...

Uh, you have no idea what you're talking about.

MSgt said:
I think I'm done with you. It is you that is suggesting the "lone gunman theory" by suggesting that he alone, without White House political guidance, developed the ROEs. It is you that stated that he alone, issued them to the Canadian government for approval. It has been you that have suggested the he alone is to blame.
Click to expand...
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?

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

MSgt said:
From your own damn article, it is clear that his arrival had to deal with the image of civilian deaths as well as win this war. Image is a politician's concern and it made its way from the White House into the ROEs. Patraeus will have the same concerns pressuring him from the White House. But Patraeus will not sacrifice troop security or the turn out of this war to a politician's need for image. He will work around it like he did in Iraq.

You do not know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

So from this quote somehow you're getting the White House made the ROEs? That's your own "interpretation" of it. It's a simple sentence stating that there was criticism for civilian deaths. It has nothing to do with "White House", ROEs, image, or anything that you are again trying to spin from it.

From the article it's also clear that McChrystal created the ROEs, you just are denying it. Even if he didn't write them, which he did, he is responsible for them because he issued them. If he felt they were going to hurt the troops or if they were wrong, he should have objected or resigned as commander, that's the proper thing for him to do. Clearly he didn't, so he did support the ROEs.
 
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.


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.
Click to expand...

So these are NATO roe and the countries of NATO do not know what they are and approve them before their soldiers obey them?
 
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. 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 ****.
Click to expand...

Not to win the war to be politically correct
 
alms said:
I never said you weren't committed, or that I was more committed than you. My point was that no matter how committed you may be, you can never obtain an understanding of the military that is anything but superficial.

And just out of curiosity, what does your son do in the Army?
Click to expand...

It is against OPSECto discuss one's activities in the military - sometimes including rank, name, location, deployment details (including exact arrival time/location - etc) and so on.

I do discuss some things concerning the semi-nature of my husband's job but nothing that denotes where he works, how long he's been there or exactly who he is and what he does - things of that nature. (Which is annoying to me at some times - he's been on TV, you all have probably seen him - but I can't brag about that, now can I :( )

It's purely a safety issue. You'd be surprised how many brainless idiots leak out detailed and personal info about their loved ones via net - only for that information to easily fall into the hands of the enemy and be used against everyone.

Which is why some people become sensitive and unhinged when questioned in that way.
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
So these are NATO roe and the countries of NATO do not know what they are and approve them before their soldiers obey them?
Click to expand...
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.
 
ptif219 said:
Really? Read the op these rules where put in place to appease the Afghan people and government
Click to expand...

Which is part of the strategy to win in Afghanistan, which is a far cry from being politically correct.
 
Redress said:
Which is part of the strategy to win in Afghanistan, which is a far cry from being politically correct.
Click to expand...

What's a far cry from being PC?
The rules that were put in place?
Or the strategy to win in Afghanistan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom