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.
(CNSNews.com) - Seventy-four percent of the U.S. military personnel who have given their lives serving in the Afghan War died after Feb. 17, 2009, when President Barack Obama announced his first increase in the number of U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan, according to CNSNews.com’s database of U.S. casualties in the war.
Again, does this surprise anyone? How can you fight a successful war when your Commander-in-Chief gives you rules of engagement that shackle your hands? And, God forbid you happen to fail to follow those rules – you'll find yourself facing a courts-martial.
It may be that the rules of engagement themselves are fine. But, it may be the interpretation that's going down the chain.
Sometimes, at the bottom of -- at the pointy end of the stick, the troops feel that they have to -- they interpret the rules of engagement in they way that maybe wasn't intended up the chain. So, that's an issue that I think the commanders have to address immediately, because there's obviously the perception that the troops are fighting with one arm tied behind their back.
Modern wars have their very unique characteristics. Enemies and friends are not clearly defined.
The rules of engagement was designed to protect innocent civilians, but what we have seen since the restrictive rules have gone into effect is Afghan civilian casualties have reached an all-time high, as have the losses of Americans military service people and NATO troops.
Obviously, we really have to take a look at this situation and see if there's a better way of accomplishing the task.
Again, does this surprise anyone? How can you fight a successful war when your Commander-in-Chief gives you rules of engagement that shackle your hands? And, God forbid you happen to fail to follow those rules – you'll find yourself facing a courts-martial.
You throw people into a battle zone for purposes of doing battle, there may be additional battle casualties.... just a thought.
How can you fight a successful war when your Commander-in-Chief gives you rules of engagement that shackle your hands? And, God forbid you happen to fail to follow those rules – you'll find yourself facing a courts-martial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
You throw people into a battle zone for purposes of doing battle, there may be additional battle casualties.... just a thought.
According the Mr. Gates in his book, Obama did not think we could win in Afghanistan, this is what happens when a president does not consider a war "his" and is only going thru the motions, seemingly doing his best to ignore it.
The generals asked for 60,000 men for the surge, with the minimum being 40,000, Obama gave them 30,000. When you have too few troops, and are still tasked with continuing the same mission, resources are too thin, and people will die who should not have if sufficient forces were available.
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.
Quote:
"These 72 detainees are dangerous criminals against whom there is strong evidence linking them to terror-related crimes, including the use of improvised explosive devices, the largest killer of Afghan civilians," Jen Psaki, a State Department spokeswoman, said at a news conference Thursday.
"These insurgents, who pose threats to the safety and security of the Afghan people and the state, are being released without an investigation and without the use of criminal justice system in accordance with Afghan law," Psaki said.
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.
Americans are always looking for an excuse for failure.
The Russians didn't win in Afghanistan, and neither will we. It has not a damn thing to do with rules of engagement and other nonsensical excuses.
The Russians were as brutal as you can get and still got their asses handed to them. That's our fate too...Deal with it.
You're not gonna defeat the natives in guerrilla war. If you're gonna be hard headed and not apply the lessons of Vietnam, then shame on you.
The only mistake Obama made is not leaving Afghanistan immediately after he was inaugurated.
Hear hear...these little tin soldiers want more blood.
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.
