Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It has nothing to do with leadership, Obama, rules of engagement, or any of that other stuff.
It's simple mission creep and getting yourself in an unwinnable war.
We stink at certain things as Americans, and it's time to admit it.
We're horrible occupiers, nation builders, and haven't a clue how to get OUT of wars. We only know how to get in them.
Moreover, we can't seem to understand the concept of "limits of power."
If the ROE is the issue, then why did the Soviets who unleashed uninhibited brutality on the Afghanis still fail?
It's over...we've done all we can do. Time to pack it in and go home. That is, unless you can tell me why we should stay, and you really can't. Not convincingly.
Preaching to the choir. I want us out of there as well. We can be very good at war. Police actions not so much because the other side sees it as war. The USSR was very successful until 2 things changed the game. The USA arming the people and when they started making headlines from the atrocities and they changed tactics.
If you go to war then go to war to destroy the enemy. You can't blow up grand pa and think it is all good in the end.
The idiots in DC will use Germany and Japan as success models. The difference of course is we absolutely destroyed them and the fact both people had a very strong sense of national identity. They were more concerned with restoring their country than they were 1000 year old tribal feuds or dogma differences within the same religion.
We never destroyed the enemy in Afghanistan because that would require us to eliminate a very large percentage of the population.
Rules of Engagement include what targets are fair game, when targets are fair game and what weapons are considered fair to use.
It is not realistic to believe that limited warfare will be as effective as an all out assault. The enemy has learned that we will not fire into a crowd to kill a bad guy. The enemy absolutely will fire into a crowd.
I am no fan of using collateral damage as a tool of war, but if we are to fight an enemy we must be willing to accept that it does happen.
The best plan of action would be to not go to war unless we are willing to destroy our enemy absolutely. We destroyed the taliban and should have left. If nothing else vietnam should have taught us that limited warfare only works if both sides are fighting a limited war.
I would prefer it if we only went to war when there was no other option.
The "task" for the combat troops would be: NOT getting left or right leg blown off by bombs or by suicide bombers while obeying all these "RULES OF ENGAGEMENT".
Everybody knows the troops should come home, but when? Do we know when?
To be honest, Im surprised at the majority of the posts, they are all very reasonable. *boggle*. Not what I am used to here.
And here I am going to be all right winger about it. Sigh.
The reality is...the ROE changed in....2010 I think?. The reason for it may be quite reasonable, and may work long term, but the ROE changes certainly have had a effect on deaths.
Im not seeing indications that this was a political decision, but it may have been a military one as we are trying to transition out of the country.
Time will tell if this was the right change or not, but until we have a more historical perspective and research into the final result we wont know if it was right or wrong. We do know its killed more soldiers. But thats the price of war. And if you minimize it too much you wont accomplish anything.
If you need a reference point, look at Vietnam.
Here's a comparison made between Vietnam and Afghanistan showing the similarities.
The only time that the fighting military was let loose and the ROE were lifted was in the Battle of Fallujah. One of the worst battles ever fought by the US military. This is when the military was allowed to do what they are meant to do - they became mean, lean, fighting machines and won that one.
This is an interesting read from a Marine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In 2010 Petreus changed the ROE that were put in place by Gen. Stanley McKrystal which were designed to:
Quote:
generally aim to limit civilian casualties by prohibiting troops from firing unless they're shot at -- or from launching bomb or artillery attacks when civilians are near the target.
If there were fewer casualties under the ROE designed by McKrystal (until 2010), and if Petreaus changed the ROE to "play nice with the enemy", obviously was something was very wrong with those changes to get so many military killed.
I bet this is coming from someone who never even served in the military ground forces in combat.
News flash smart guy! The rules of engagement were/are just about the same under the last 4 presidents at a minimum! I don't have to read an opinionated article to understand that... Don't fire unless fired upon, etc. Majority of the casualties were the result of IEDs and ambushes. The enemy picked off US service man/women by taking pot shots... You can't hold a position without being amongst damager...
Karzai, our good friend, is releasing dozens of insurgents from jail (mostly who were caught by US and NATO troops) claiming there is no proof that they are a threat (according to his Afghan spy agency, while the US has evidence that they are a threat.
They are a threat not only to the Afghan people and the state, but to American and any other NATO troops that are left behind after a withdrawal, whenever that will be.
Spite move by Karzai because the US won't accept his terms if the US wants to leave troops behind? Leaving troops behind would mean death to our troops.
Karzai is no friend of America... The US needs to stop propping up these idiots...
I bet this is coming from someone who never even served in the military ground forces in combat.
News flash smart guy! The rules of engagement were/are just about the same under the last 4 presidents at a minimum! I don't have to read an opinionated article to understand that... Don't fire unless fired upon, etc. Majority of the casualties were the result of IEDs and ambushes. The enemy picked off US service man/women by taking pot shots... You can't hold a position without being amongst damager...
News flash for you!! You should have read the articles. Yeah, I bet that Marine who wrote his article is lying and never served, unlike you who was probably digging in at the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Of course there's danger. Those that join the military are fully aware of that and they are willing put their lives on the line. But why should those in power make it more dangerous? Why increase the odds of them dying? Oh, wait - the government owns them and they are dispensable.
Last edited by softblueyz; 01-10-2014 at 08:48 PM..
In my experience ROE's are more often defined by civilian leadership. Case in point Vietnam. Military leadership will then try to develop strategies that can work within those ROE's.
Like I said I don't know when or even if they were changed, but something changed. 74% of the kills in 2 less years is a huge change.
It's not just a change of ROE. The mission changes, the strategy changes, the actual locations of combat changes--heck, even the enemy changes. It's not just one thing.
One major change, for instance, is that the Taliban is getting far more assistance from within Pakistan than it did initially.
I personally agree with an earlier poster: The Soviets weren't pussyfooting, and they still got their heads handed to them (and that wasn't only because the US provided the jihadists with FIM-92).
Karzai is no friend of America... The US needs to stop propping up these idiots...
I guess I should have added "/end sarcasm" since you can't see it, especially what I wrote following that reference..
Karzai has been playing on both teams and both teams keep paying him. He would sell his family from the trunk of his car if he could make money doing it.
It has nothing to do with leadership, Obama, rules of engagement, or any of that other stuff.
It's simple mission creep and getting yourself in an unwinnable war.
We stink at certain things as Americans, and it's time to admit it.
We're horrible occupiers, nation builders, and haven't a clue how to get OUT of wars. We only know how to get in them.
Moreover, we can't seem to understand the concept of "limits of power."
If the ROE is the issue, then why did the Soviets who unleashed uninhibited brutality on the Afghanis still fail?
It's over...we've done all we can do. Time to pack it in and go home. That is, unless you can tell me why we should stay, and you really can't. Not convincingly.
And that was the whole point of the Powell-Weinberger Doctrine, assented to by the entire cohort of Army generals who had been junior officers in Vietnam.
And that was the whole point of the Powell-Weinberger Doctrine, assented to by the entire cohort of Army generals who had been junior officers in Vietnam.
Brother, Americans are naturally hardheaded. This is why we find ourselves in the same doodoo over and over again. We just can't accept that even a nation as large and powerful as ours has limitations...we just can't impose our will on everyone just because we're the big badass Americans.
The people of Afghanistan will NOT be defeated or conquered and they aren't going to be dictated to by a bunch of Johnny come lately ass Americans with their 200 year tradition of democracy. Afghans are a proud people with thousand year traditions and they have every right to resist our imposition.
Americans just can't fathom that other people don't wanna be like us. They can't fathom that other people are just as rugged and tough as we are despite our high tech weaponry.
You and I know how this is gonna end. If we know, then people that get paid to know better know it too. They're just wasting the lives of our young men for nothing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
