• 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

I'm sorry, but you're not following. The countries need to approve the new ROE as well given by the ISAF commander. It's in the original article, how Canada needed to approve them first: New Rules of Engagement issued to NATO Forces by Gen McChrystal | NowPublic News Coverage
These are not ROEs for the entire NATO, but specifically the ROEs for the NATO ISAF mission, I believe.

So countries of NATO have no say only the US says how these forces conduct themselves
 
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
That's exactly what I said.
The Commander in Chief is responsible for how the military campaign is going.
I never said he has no responsibility. The president has blanket responsibility for the war, but does not direct the operations and details of such war. That's the military's job.

It's like saying the CEO's job is to create the product. It's the engineers job to create the product. The CEO is not an engineer, he does not tell the engineers how to make it. He just tells them what he wants and its the engineer's job to make the product. The CEO is responsible for the end product, is it his job to create the product, no.

Obama is responsible for the end result of the war, is it his job to create ROEs? No, that's the military's job. Is he responsible for what McChrystal does? Yes, which is why he replaced him with Petraeus. Is it his job to tell McChrystal what to do? No.
 
So countries of NATO have no say only the US says how these forces conduct themselves
I'm not sure you're quite getting how the military works. The countries participating in this NATO operation all fall under the joint-operational control of the ISAF commander. If they don't want to, they don't have to participate, or they can participate alongside the mission, but so far that is not how it is happening. The ISAF commander is not just from the US. It has previously been British, Canadian, and Turkish, and in that case the US has to follow them at that time, I think. I don't know how the ISAF commander is chosen, but whoever he is I'm pretty sure you got to follow orders. The countries of NATO are responsible for their own forces, but they agree to participate under the joint-operational control.

You can see International Security Assistance Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for more information.
 
Last edited:
That's exactly what I said.
I never said he has no responsibility. The president has blanket responsibility for the war, but does not direct the operations and details of such war. That's the military's job.

It's like saying the CEO's job is to create the product. It's the engineers job to create the product. The CEO is not an engineer, he does not tell the engineers how to make it. He just tells them what he wants and its the engineer's job to make the product. The CEO is responsible for the end product, is it his job to create the product, no.

Obama is responsible for the end result of the war, is it his job to create ROEs? No, that's the military's job. Is he responsible for what McChrystal does? Yes, which is why he replaced him with Petraeus. Is it his job to tell McChrystal what to do? No.

The CEO keeps up with progress and authorizes statements and policy and research. These rules went into place because either Obama agreed or he was not doing his job as commander.
 
The CEO keeps up with progress and authorizes statements and policy and research. These rules went into place because either Obama agreed or he was not doing his job as commander.
No, you're right. Obama is responsible for the mission. I do fault Obama for putting McChrystal in charge rather than Petraeus in the first place, and allowing the ROE to go into effect. He should have changed commanders when the ROE were put in place. He made a mistake, however he has corrected that mistake by getting rid of McChrystal and putting Petraeus in charge now, which many agree to be a sound decision. He made a mistake, but has chosen a good commander now so hopefully things will be better now.

But also, this is different than the other posters saying that Obama told McChrystal what ROEs to make. Although Obama is responsible for McChrystal's actions, he didn't tell him what to do like the other guys are saying.
 
PubliusInfinitum 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.

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.

The President, at least, this President, is not an expert on anything except anti-American, socialist dogma. Yet there he is the President of the United States, who swore an oathe to uphold the US Constitution; to which he is fundamentally opposed.

The Commander in Chief is however, despite your protestation, responsible for and in total command of the actions of the US Military and as such determines the rules by which they will engage the enemy, which he sends to contest.

As such, it is the CinC which retains the final authority for all matters regarding the US Military, which decidedly includes the rules of engagement by which the US Military operates. PERIOD!



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.


Nope... 'Hearts and Minds' is a force multiplying tenet of guerilla warfare which goes back to Sun Tsu. The phrase "Winning the hearts and minds of the Local Indigenous People" is rooted in the mamby pamby bowels of the Johnson Administration and one General Westmoreland; Commanding General of US Forces in South East Asia. Circa 1964-ish.

Of course, Hearts and Minds only works when the player seeking to win the hearts and mind are sincere and virtuous. LBJ was not, Hussein is not and no Progressive is capable of such; thus the reason for Chronic Progressive failure in such matters; they're inherently corrupt; and the people attached to those hearts and minds, not being FOOLS, soon recognize that they're being played and turn to the highly dedicated, sincere INSURGENCY!

Nothing particularly complex about this... It's human nature and there's no mystery left in such matters.
 
Read this was done to appease the afghans that is being politcally correct. It is politics.

Actually, it's called being diplomatic. We need the Afghanistan people and government on our side to win, so trying to not piss them off too much is simply sensible.
 
Actually, it's called being diplomatic. We need the Afghanistan people and government on our side to win, so trying to not piss them off too much is simply sensible.

The people aren't on the government's side.
Why should they be?
Everyone knows it's a corrupt puppet government.
 
The President, at least, this President, is not an expert on anything except anti-American, socialist dogma.
Just as your conservative wing is an expert on making facts up where none exist.

The Commander in Chief is however, despite your protestation, responsible for and in total command of the actions of the US Military and as such determines the rules by which they will engage the enemy, which he sends to contest.

As such, it is the CinC which retains the final authority for all matters regarding the US Military, which decidedly includes the rules of engagement by which the US Military operates. PERIOD!
Apparently, you aren't familiar with civilian control of the military. As Commander in Chief, its the President's responsibility to give the orders to the military on what mission they are to carry out, not micromanage the day-to-day affairs of the military. As a civilian, the President or Commander in Chief would be detrimental to the mission if he were manage the affairs of the military and override the orders of professional generals lest he is a military expert. The President is the Executive of the United States, does that give him the power to manage things at the city and state level? No it doesn't, its not his place to do so. Again, read the analogy of the CEO posted previously. While a CEO is responsible for the end result of a product, he is not responsible to make that product.

Apparently, you also are not familiar with Vietnam, when Presidents did put restrictive ROE in place, such as not to bomb or fight above a certain parallel or not to bomb N. Vietnamese airbases. Their interference was detrimental to the mission. President Obama is doing what a proper civilian Commander in Chief should be doing.

LBJ was not, Hussein is not
Are you talking about Saddam Hussein? I don't know of anyone who goes by that name.

Nope... 'Hearts and Minds' is a force multiplying tenet of guerilla warfare which goes back to Sun Tsu. The phrase "Winning the hearts and minds of the Local Indigenous People" is rooted in the mamby pamby bowels of the Johnson Administration and one General Westmoreland; Commanding General of US Forces in South East Asia. Circa 1964-ish.

Of course, Hearts and Minds only works when the player seeking to win the hearts and mind are sincere and virtuous. LBJ was not, Hussein is not and no Progressive is capable of such; thus the reason for Chronic Progressive failure in such matters; they're inherently corrupt; and the people attached to those hearts and minds, not being FOOLS, soon recognize that they're being played and turn to the highly dedicated, sincere INSURGENCY!
Are you calling General McChrystal "mamby pamby" and a fool, and accuse him of playing into the insurgency? Because that is his strategy and those are his orders.

And I am still waiting for you to admit that the President did not create these restrictive ROEs and that they were in fact created by General McChrystal, or do you refuse to believe this?
 
So O is elected and appoints a liberal General McCrystal to run Afghan war.

Because of all the administration limitations and interference in Afghan., things are not working out well there (or anywhere else in administration) so O decides he must make a PURELY POLITICAL move and actually try to win the war and improve his plumeting ratings. To do this he wants a sure thing and therefore has to appoint the BETRAYER Petraeus who's Iraq surge he still doesn't admit worked.

To cover up his gross hypocricy and blithering incompetence he get's his liberal General to commit military chain of command hari kari by saying some not so bad but bad enough things to get called on the carpet.

He provides a far left naive liberal shill at Rolling Stone (not there's a serious political rag) to be the fall guy. Nobody really blames McCrystal. The reasons the Afghan war is failing are shrouded by the controversy. The rest of the far left naive liveral shills think or are told to say (think) that the move is "brilliant" by O.

Presumably our greatest general of the time wins the war and O get's all the credit.
 
who's Iraq surge he still doesn't admit worked.

Oh - Omaba admitted it worked, alright - his words were "better than anyone ever dared to DREAM it would" . . . . but it worked for all teh wrong reasons.
(during his interview with Bill O'Reilly during the election)

Obama can only say "it's Bush's War . .. it's Bush's Fault" for so long before he actually bites himself in the ass with that.
 
To do this he wants a sure thing and therefore has to appoint the BETRAYER Petraeus who's Iraq surge he still doesn't admit worked.
Actually, it was liberals like John Kerry who introduced Petraeus' name first on the Sunday talk shows and their calling for a change in command in Iraq, which probably led to Petraeus being appointed as commander in Iraq in the first place.
 
So O is elected and appoints a liberal General McCrystal to run Afghan war.

Because of all the administration limitations and interference in Afghan., things are not working out well there (or anywhere else in administration) so O decides he must make a PURELY POLITICAL move and actually try to win the war and improve his plumeting ratings. To do this he wants a sure thing and therefore has to appoint the BETRAYER Petraeus who's Iraq surge he still doesn't admit worked.

To cover up his gross hypocricy and blithering incompetence he get's his liberal General to commit military chain of command hari kari by saying some not so bad but bad enough things to get called on the carpet.

He provides a far left naive liberal shill at Rolling Stone (not there's a serious political rag) to be the fall guy. Nobody really blames McCrystal. The reasons the Afghan war is failing are shrouded by the controversy. The rest of the far left naive liveral shills think or are told to say (think) that the move is "brilliant" by O.

Presumably our greatest general of the time wins the war and O get's all the credit.

Oh - how did he betray everyone?

Every tosses that insult around purely because it rhymes with his name but I've found that FEW people actually believe it or know where it comes from.

Just what did he do that was so WRONG and horrible?
 
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.
I can agree with this, serving in the Marine Corps I do understand that your husband or you can not speak in detail about your husbands duties, as it was with me. Now my brother who served ten years in the Army Green Berets back in the eighties, to this day he will not discuss what he did. Today he works for Raytheon and again he will not discuss what he does there in detail.
 
Oh - Omaba admitted it worked, alright - his words were "better than anyone ever dared to DREAM it would" . . . . but it worked for all teh wrong reasons.
(during his interview with Bill O'Reilly during the election)

Obama can only say "it's Bush's War . .. it's Bush's Fault" for so long before he actually bites himself in the ass with that.
At one point Obama will have to command and take full responsibility, just imagine a Commanding general parroting what Obama keeps advocating...it's Bush's fault. Adm. Nimitz was said, "when in Command...command", that said Obama best get a feeling for what this nations wants and that would be...LISTEN.
 
I can agree with this, serving in the Marine Corps I do understand that your husband or you can not speak in detail about your husbands duties, as it was with me. Now my brother who served ten years in the Army Green Berets back in the eighties, to this day he will not discuss what he did. Today he works for Raytheon and again he will not discuss what he does there in detail.

Yep - what happens in theater stays in theater. . .sometimes your only confidants are those who were there and did that, too.
 
Uh, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh really? Perhaps you should figure a few things out before you embarrass yourself further. I may know a thing or two about my profession. I know you have a simple news article and believe you have achieved ultimate wisdom from it (despite the lack of information in it), but you are missing the boat because you have selected that which you can use to further your political liberal argument of shielding the President.

Clearly he didn't, so he did support the ROEs.

Oh clearly. That's why he's obviously still in command, huh? Because he supported the White House and their ideas of what to do in this war? I guess his problems stopped at the ROEs, huh? Troops have been killed over these ROEs. Or is this something else about my profession you know better?
 
Last edited:
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.

Which will be approved of by the White House after they satisfy the political pressures of the situation.
 
The president as commander in chief is still responsible for these rules

Oh, no.no. Under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush the Commander-in-Chief would be responsible with the haphazard rules in place. Under Obama, our commanders are rogues and designing their own rules with no oversight.
 
Last edited:
"Rules of engagement are most often decided upon by commanders and are created to carry out and fall in line with over-arching orders or goals from higher command."

Rules of engagement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Keeping away from the poppy fields because the cotton production programs have yet to grow to subplant the drug economy in Afghanistan is a higher government level concern.

Using less drones to accomodate the international complaint of civilian deaths is a higher government level concern.

Refusing to fly air support over a village becuase of the international complaint of civilian deaths is a higher governmnet level concern.

Getting drone visual proof of engagement before accepting a radio transmission of contact by a radioman in the field is because of the international complaint of civilian deaths...and is a higher level government concern.


All of these things and more creep into our ROEs and they are not because of the commander in the field. These are political issues that address "concerns" that our allies have. In the end, it goes back to image and protecting our illusion of it. And no matter what, they come from the White House. The current ROEs go too far to protect image and are hidden under the disguise of winning hearts and minds.
 
Which will be approved of by the White House after they satisfy the political pressures of the situation.
Where is your evidence of this? Do you have anything to support your claims? Or do you just believe things to be true that you want to believe them the way you want them to be. Wishing things to be true doesn't count as what actually happened.

You just don't give up do you? Even with General McChrystal stating in his own words under oath that he created the ROE, you still have to blame Obama on it. Did you read this article?:

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.


Furthermore, Michael Hastings’ 22 June profile of McChrystal in Rolling Stone (the profile that consequently lead to the general’s professional demise), reported that McChrystal advocated “a controversial military strategy known as counterinsurgency” in Afghanistan and that “n the end … McChrystal got almost exactly what he wanted.” Hastings also reported that McChrystal defended the rules of engagement during a question-and-answer session with soldiers, stating in part, “What I’m telling you is, fire costs you. What do you want to do? You want to wipe the population out here and resettle it?” Of course Rush very conveniently avoided any sections of the profile where decisions such as these were made by the general. Instead wanting to blame the President for any and all military decisions made in theater.
 
Oh really? Perhaps you should figure a few things out before you embarrass yourself further. I may know a thing or two about my profession. I know you have a simple news article and believe you have achieved ultimate wisdom from it (despite the lack of information in it), but you are missing the boat because you have selected that which you can use to further your political liberal argument of shielding the President.
You think because you're in the military you know everything to know about General McChrystal and Obama and creating ROE. Just because you're in the military doesn't make you an expert on everything that happens in the military. You're qualified to speak on what you do day-to-day. You don't have any expertise or any grounds to try to tell what happened between Obama and McChrystal and who created the ROE. That's why you have to read article's that tell what happened to find out what actually happened.
 
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.

.

You mean dead Afghanistans who may or may not be terrorists. I doubt if any Afghanistan has dog tags or carries any other kind of identification.

ricksfolly
 
This is not a conventional war, far from it, so Rules of Engagement don't apply. There's no way to pin down the Taliban because they have no set locations, and when they strike, it's hit and run.

ricksfolly
 
Oh, no.no. Under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush the Commander-in-Chief would be responsible with the haphazard rules in place. Under Obama, our commanders are rogues and designing their own rules with no oversight.
Yup, that's why Obama is not like and is better than his predecessors.

Oh really? Perhaps you should figure a few things out before you embarrass yourself further. I may know a thing or two about my profession. I know you have a simple news article and believe you have achieved ultimate wisdom from it (despite the lack of information in it), but you are missing the boat because you have selected that which you can use to further your political liberal argument of shielding the President.

Oh clearly. That's why he's obviously still in command, huh? Because he supported the White House and their ideas of what to do in this war? I guess his problems stopped at the ROEs, huh? Troops have been killed over these ROEs. Or is this something else about my profession you know better?
I await your admission of being wrong anytime now ...
 
Back
Top Bottom