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.
Interesting. I read the article, and did a word search for "Barack" and another for "Obama" - no hits.
Which begs the question ... did you read the article?
Or maybe General Stanley McChrystal's middle name is Barack?
MONTAGNE: Now the rules of engagement have changed lately for troops in Afghanistan.
BOWMAN: That's right. General Stanley McChrystal, the overall commander there, tightened up these rules on when soldiers can fire. And he did this because there was - there were too many civilian casualties in Afghanistan. But this all illustrates the basic dilemma for U.S. troops. They want to kill insurgents who are trying to kill them, but their job is to make sure they only fire when they're very sure of their targets.
BOWMAN: You know, they are hearing these complaints. And I had a few minutes this week with their overall commander, General McChrystal, and I told him the same story, Renee, I told you. And I asked him about the rules of engagement. Here's what he had to say:
General STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL (U.S. Commander, Afghanistan): I've been at this a long time now, since 9/11, and there were a tremendous number of times when I've seen activities done, which, on the surface of what was seen, looks exactly one way, looks completely convincing. And then in the aftermath, what you saw was incomplete. In fact, what we find is civilian casualties who are unarmed civilians.
I think when we err on the side of maturity and caution, there is a cost. And I know that we're asking an extraordinary amount from them to operate with such restraint and self-discipline, but I think it's how we win the war.
I guess listening to the generals on the ground is restricted to Republican Administrations, eh?
I bet the terrorists are now finding a way to always have a civilian nearby, which practically guarantees that they will not be shot at.
I actually have NO problem with this.. Faced with killing a civilian, thereby increasing the retaliation levels, vs letting someone go, I choose let them go. That one innocent life could equate to dozens of american casulties. We are trying to make friends there, not create even more enemies..
I don't care for Obama's policies, but I'm going to be fair here. It's the left wing, highly vocal, hand wringers, that are responsible for these idiotic ROE's, and it has been this way for a LONG time, not just under Obama. Does anyone remember Beirut? The emabassy bombing, that killed over 200 Marines, could have been stopped, but the sentry at the gate was holding an unloaded rifle. He left his post , to get a magazine for said rifle, and the truck crashed the gate before he could fill out the proper forms, in triplicate, to procure ammo. This kind of crap came into it's own under Carter and has carried on, as an appeasemnt measure, to this day, through Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 and now Obama. Silly ROE's are nothing new, but, they do need to go away. So, as much as I dislike the current administrations agenda and policies, the hamstinging of our soldiers in battle is not Obama's invention. He is pandering to the far left with stupid, touchy feely, ROE's yes, but even Reagan did that, and it is getting our people killed and has been for 35 odd years or better.
Maybe all you arm chair generals should joint the military, work your way up the ranks and challenge McChrysal's ideas for accomplishing their mission. Just a thought.
Maybe all you arm chair generals should joint the military, work your way up the ranks and challenge McChrysal's ideas for accomplishing their mission. Just a thought.
Uh huh. And, maybe, some of the peace love and groovy types could do the same thing, and bring all that much needed change, straight to the battlefield. That dog has two heads. Just a thought..........
When did Afghanistan become the center of the world ? I'm not letting it rule my life as a liberal. If the warmongers want to go get killed, let them. Perma Wars are the wave of the future. Big business. Americans have had the wool pulled over their eyes, their wallets raped, and they just don't seem to mind.
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.
This kind of crap came into it's own under Carter and has carried on, as an appeasemnt measure, to this day, through Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 and now Obama. Silly ROE's are nothing new, but, they do need to go away. So, as much as I dislike the current administrations agenda and policies, the hamstinging of our soldiers in battle is not Obama's invention. He is pandering to the far left with stupid, touchy feely, ROE's yes, but even Reagan did that, and it is getting our people killed and has been for 35 odd years or better.
