• 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!

74% of U.S. Afghan Casualties Came After Obama Ordered Troops Increased

Steve Ja said:
How many of these deaths are a result of the rules and regulations Coalition soldiers have to follow. Having our hands tied has not helped the situation at all there. It's become quite political. The time has come for us to leave, however I am very concerned on what will happen when we do
Click to expand...

the rules have not changed
 
Montecresto said:
You're splitting hairs there. It's part of the expanded ROE's that exist when your fighting a loosing war against people that blend into civilian population.
Click to expand...
There's the rub, and there's why we should refrain from fighting wars anymore... we don't have the political will, nor the intestinal fortitude, to win. Trying to minimize civilian causalities is noble, absolutely, but when the opposing side blends in with, and is really a part of, the civilian population you only have two choices... ROEs and failure, or no ROEs and potential victory. Option C does not exist.
 
radcen said:
There's the rub, and there's why we should refrain from fighting wars anymore... we don't have the political will, nor the intestinal fortitude, to win. Trying to minimize civilian causalities is noble, absolutely, but when the opposing side blends in with, and is really a part of, the civilian population you only have two choices... ROEs and failure, or no ROEs and potential victory. Option C does not exist.
Click to expand...

Option C exists in the minds of many here. Not sure why you believe option C doesn't exist, but for me its because killing babies and young children along with grandparents and the family pets, in perpetuity, isn't an option.
 
Montecresto said:
radcen said:
There's the rub, and there's why we should refrain from fighting wars anymore... we don't have the political will, nor the intestinal fortitude, to win. Trying to minimize civilian causalities is noble, absolutely, but when the opposing side blends in with, and is really a part of, the civilian population you only have two choices... ROEs and failure, or no ROEs and potential victory. Option C does not exist.
Click to expand...
Option C exists in the minds of many here. Not sure why you believe option C doesn't exist, but for me its because killing babies and young children along with grandparents and the family pets, in perpetuity, isn't an option.
Click to expand...
Then you choose Option A, as noted in red.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
When you airstrike a bunch of civilians its usually used as propaganda against you for recruits for the local "mujaheddin" to fight in that "holy war"....



Yea.... But if they never wanted it to suceed why do it in the first place? Why increase drone strikes in the area? And why do a massive offensive? Doenst make much since at all...
Click to expand...

This is the "war" liberals wanted instead of Iraq. President Obama complied.
 
radcen said:
Then you choose Option A, as noted in red.
Click to expand...

Of course not. I didn't know that that was the first post of mine you ever read, I was standing next to the lone congresswoman that opposed the afghan war!
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Dont surges "work so good"? Now the Taliban is back and is gonna be in serious political business here pretty soon. All this worthless bloodshed for what? The unwinable "war on terror"?
Click to expand...

They work great, when the CIC isn't under-mining them for political reasons.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Makes sense that if you ramp up the war and send more troops into harm's way, that more troops will die...idk what the amazing revelation is here.
Click to expand...

The Taliban has a finite amount of combat power; meaning that they can only inflict so many casualties. Just because more American troops were deployed to the battlefield, doesn't necessarily mean that there will be more casualties.

There are many factors that involved and one of the factors are the ROE's that were implemented by the CIC. It's been known for some times that Obama's ROE have created an environment that produced more American casualties.

“In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.

“It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement], casualties more than doubled,” Mr. Simmons said. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”

Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement - Washington Times
Click to expand...


In country, we have Escalation of Force Kits. These keep people away in a non-lethal manner. To do that, they used to contain "KEEP BACK" signs we'd put on our trucks during a convoy and the kits also had small flares we could fire. These things were taken away and instead we were told to drive with the same courtesy we would use if driving in the U.S.

That means if cars get backed up behind us, we are to pull over and let them pass.

This takes our buffer -- our zone of safety -- completely away. Because once we pull over, the cars get to pass right up against us and that opens the door for suicide bombers, suicide bombs, and gun fire.

We allow people to get so close to our vehicles that we have no time to react should they try to do something.

Soldiers: Obama's Rules Of Engagement Costing U.S. Lives in Afghanistan
Click to expand...

It's been attested to, by troops actually on the ground in AG, that the rules of engagement made things more dangerous for them.
 
Last edited:
Sherman123 said:
The surge wasn't large enough or long term enough to accomplish the objectives under consideration. McChrystal originally wanted 50,000-80,000 troops but knew this was a politically impossible figure to ask for, even his middle option of 40,000 wasn't palatable enough though he believed anything short of 40,000 was to bring the risk of failure to unacceptable levels.
Click to expand...

That was Obama's intention. It's why he lowered the force level. He undermined the whole show.
 
apdst said:
The Taliban has a finite amount of combat power; meaning that they can only inflict so many casualties. Just because more American troops were deployed to the battlefield, doesn't necessarily mean that there will be more casualties.

There are many factors that involved and one of the factors are the ROE's that were implemented by the CIC. It's been known for some times that Obama's ROE have created an environment that produced more American casualties.






It's been attested to, by troops actually on the ground in AG, that the rules of engagement made things more dangerous for them.
Click to expand...

Do you know WHY the ROE's were changed?
 
apdst said:
They work great, when the CIC isn't under-mining them for political reasons.
Click to expand...

The whole ****ing war on terror is a political war!! You still don't know that.
 
apdst said:
That was Obama's intention. It's why he lowered the force level. He undermined the whole show.
Click to expand...

That what these US wars of aggression are to you is "shows". News pal, the War On Terror" is UNWINABLE!!
 
Montecresto said:
Do you know WHY the ROE's were changed?
Click to expand...

The change was designed to give the enemy the upper hand, kill more Americans and allow Obama to declare defeat.
 
Montecresto said:
That what these US wars of aggression are to you is "shows". News pal, the War On Terror" is UNWINABLE!!
Click to expand...

With a CIC, that has that same defeatest mentality, you're right.
 
apdst said:
The change was designed to give the enemy the upper hand, kill more Americans and allow Obama to declare defeat.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. THAT is pathetic. Let me throw it back on ya apdst, hate America much?
 
apdst said:
With a CIC, that has that same defeatest mentality, you're right.
Click to expand...

Well, your most likely to see a CON or RINO in the White House next time and you'll get a second chance to show us how it's done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom