Troops say strict rules of engagement slow their advance on Taliban

[JohnBrowdie]

this is the kind of crap that happens when the president commits troops to a war that he doesn't really believe in.  it was a campaign issue for him.  since he opposed the iraq war, he thought he needed a war to be in favor of, lest he he get hammered as a pacifist.

the flip side of rules of engagement that are this restrictive is that sooner or later, they will be charging soldiers for violating these rules of engagement when all they were doing is defending themselves.  it's hundreds of courts martial waiting to happen.

Some troops say strict rules of engagement slow their advance on Taliban stronghold

MARJAH, Afghanistan (AP) — Some American and Afghan troops say they're fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.

"I understand the reason behind it, but it's so hard to fight a war like this," said Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, 20, of Altoona, Iowa. "They're using our rules of engagement against us," he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.

If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon — or if they did not personally watch him drop one.

What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can't count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.
.
.
.
That's a marked change from the battle of Fallujah, Iraq in November 2004. When Marines there encountered snipers holed up in a building, they routinely called in airstrikes. In Marjah, fighter jets are flying at low altitude in a show of force, but are not firing missiles.

more

[JohnBrowdie]

more on the rules of engagement in the battle of marjah;  a rework of the same soldiers comments in the british press.

US Marines said they are constrained by strict new rules of engagement that make their task more dangerous. Under the rules, troops cannot fire at people unless they commit a hostile act or show intent.

Corporal Travis Anderson, 20, from Iowa, said his platoon had repeatedly seen Afghan fighters dropping their guns into ditches before melting away into the civilian population.

“It’s hard to fight a war like this,” he said. “They’re using our rules of engagement against us.”

More

[jafo2010]

WAR     WAR    WAR   There is that liberal use of that word again.

We are not fighting a war when we restricts warriors and how they engage the enemy.  The policy of the PRO terror group will result in many more American sons and daughters dying in combats, deaths that could have been prevented, but we choose to betray our men and women in uniform with such ridiculous policies.

Again, in these two Vietnams, there is only one outcome, that being the same as the first Vietnam, where the USA fails to achieve anything and withdraws in defeat.  We are too worried about non combatants.

Get out of Iraq (Vietnam II) and Afghanistan (Vietnam III) now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JohnBrowdie]

the USA has already achieved two victories in iraq and afghanistan.  in iraq, saddam is no longer in power, and in afghanistan, the taliban are no longer protecting al quada's use of that country as a haven for terrorists.

iraq was won when BHO took office.  as long as he does nothing to screw that up, iraq will be something other than a thugocracy for the foreseeable future.  any way you want to cut it, that is a huge improvement. 

and I applaud obama's commitment to the war on terror in afghanistan.  I think that counter-insurgency probably isn't the way to go, but at least he is in there.

 

[Squeezer]

Just FYI, here's the justification for the restrictions from the CENTAF commander.  Sure, you can blame Obama for this strategy because he's the CINC, but he's a CINC with no military experience, so what is he really going to do besides follow the strategical inputs of his generals?  And the plan to place protecting civilian lives over inflicting enemy casualties was not Obama's idea, it was McChrystal's.

SHAW AIR FORCE BASE, S.C. — American forces fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan are doing all they can to avoid civilian deaths, but sometimes horrible things occur despite the allies’ goal of protecting the local population, the head of the U.S. Air Force in the war zone said Tuesday.

“We are being very careful not to damage the civilian infrastructure and to harm civilians, but unfortunately it happens. We are doing everything humanly possible to avoid it,” said Lt. Gen. Mike Hostage, the three-star general in charge of Air Forces for Central Command.

Hostage spoke with reporters during a 20-hour visit to Shaw Air Force Base to keep in touch with his 800-member support staff. He took over the position at a forward headquarters in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar in August.

The 32-year Air Force veteran called the civilian deaths in the ongoing fighting “horribly unfortunate.”

About a dozen civilians have been killed in three separate incidents in recent days as 15,000 U.S. and Afghan forces are in a heated battle around the Taliban stronghold of Marjah.

Hostage said the objective is to persuade the populace to side with the government and against the insurgent force.

“Civilians die every day at the hand of the Taliban,” Hostage said. “We have to protect them from that. ... The people know who the bad guys are.”

More: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/02/ap_airforce_hostage_afghanistan_021610/

[jafo2010]

Well, any fool that believes this is a WINNING strategy has no memory, or knowledge of Vietnam.

I deal in the real world and look at issues with a realistic perspective.  Fact is, the Taliban has been growing back to prominence in Afghanistan, and the American/UN presence in Afghanistan is largely LIMITED to defending cities.  By all measure, this is a LOSING strategy, and we will leave Afghanistan in the hands of the Taliban when we pull out, regardless if that is one month from today, ten years from today, or a hundred years from today.  And who do you think will re-establish themselves all over again and be back in business like nothing happened?  You got it, if you have a brain.  The good Islamic followers of bin Laden.

The USA is a WEAK minded nation, for we no longer have the wisdom to destroy an enemy.  We did not destroy the enemy in Afghanistan, for they are slowly taking back the country.  Every one of our troops that loses his/her life in that God forsaken country is losing their life in vein.  The USA being there has nothing to do with defending America.  These so called wars are a travesty, a criminal undertaking, for we are not accomplishing one damn thing. 

Time will prove me right on this.  You cannot have a war fought like Vietnam and expect a different outcome.  Either you totally destroy your enemy, or they will keep coming, particularly when their fervor is based on their religious beliefs, as in the Muslims who are hell bent to destroy America and Israel.

Do you realize that much of the world sees the Israelis as the antagonist in the conflict between Israel and Palestine.  The same is now true for what the USA is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Mr. Bush squandered whatever capital he had by executing a limited war effort in dealing with the Muslims, and now the fool in office is making things worse.

Where are the Halseys and Pattons in the military when you need them?  Men that knew how to destroy an enemy.  Our military leaders today are politicians, and are ineffective.

[JohnBrowdie]

I am presuming that the administration is interfering/micromanaging with the military's war policy.  it's all part of the elitist liberal impulse;  disdain for the military and haughty superiority at being naturally smarter than people who are expert in their field.  you see their fingerprints at this level of detail all over the spectrum.

hostage is a very unfortunate name for a general fighting terrorists.  jus' sayin'

cool article. 

Just FYI, here's the justification for the restrictions from the CENTAF commander.  Sure, you can blame Obama for this strategy because he's the CINC, but he's a CINC with no military experience, so what is he really going to do besides follow the strategical inputs of his generals?  And the plan to place protecting civilian lives over inflicting enemy casualties was not Obama's idea, it was McChrystal's.


More: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/02/ap_airforce_hostage_afghanistan_021610/

[Squeezer]

That could be true, who knows.  And I'm not saying I agree with McChrystal's strategy, but it was probably the only way he would have gotten Obama to commit to the troop surge.  Kinda ironic considering Obama always cites Abe Lincoln as his hero, who fired general after general in the Civil War until he found one who would take the fight to the South. 

Heh, and yes, General Hostage is an unfortunate name...where's General Mayhem when you need 'im?

[Squeezer]

Just found another article I really enjoyed on the subject of conditions on the ground while trying to implement this strategy.

MARJAH, Afghanistan — Afghan Lt. Col. Ghullam Dastagir was hunched over a map, going over his battalion’s operations with Marine Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson.

“We took over this area,” Dastagir said Thursday, sweeping his hand over a section of the laminated map. “They are on the run.”

A Taliban rocket whistled past. Someone yelled, “Incoming!” It exploded harmlessly in a large puff of smoke in a nearby field. The men looked up briefly and turned back to the map.

U.S. forces here in the Taliban stronghold of Marjah are under orders to “go slow,” troops say. It’s part of Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s aim of protecting the people rather than just killing the enemy: Hold down civilian casualties to avoid alienating those you wish to win over to your side.

“There’s no rush,” Nicholson said. “Time is on our side.”

More: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/02/gns_afghanistan_marines_021910/

[jafo2010]

This is a routine from a comedy, right?

It is difficult for me to comprehend that these words are anything but lines out of a comedy movie.  Let's move slow so that no civilians are harmed?

Do you think the enemy is moving slow?  Hell, they are in the next county by the time we move, and time is on our side with this set them up, pick them off and run philosophy?  By the way, the ones being setup are the US troops, not the enemy.

Every general allowing this approach should be immediately FIRED!  FIRED WITH EXTREME CONTEMPT!  What a bunch of Stooges!

Why not provide the enemy with a five course meal too before you move forward?  We wouldn't want them to run on a empty stomach, would we?

[JohnBrowdie]

exactly.  they spent weeks and weeks talking about something before he announced the surge.  I have always assumed that obama had to give the people who wanted to cut and run something to pacify them.  screwed up rules of engagement may have been the price. 

not being able to blow someone away that was just shooting at you because  he tossed his gun into a ditch just sounds like something a liberal would come up with, doesn't it?

. . . And I'm not saying I agree with McChrystal's strategy, but it was probably the only way he would have gotten Obama to commit to the troop surge . . . .

[jafo2010]

For McCrystal to agree to any of it makes him equally incompetent.

I SAY IMPEACH THE STUPID BAST*RD NOW!!!!!!!!!!!  If the Dems want to get elected in November, IMPEACH this FOOL NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IMPEACH!

IMPEACH!

IMPEACH!

[JohnBrowdie]

on what charges?  I disagree with the president, but I do not believe that he has committed a "high crime" or "misdemeanor"

[Miss Mia]

I think he's saying to impeach McCrystal....   

on what charges?  I disagree with the president, but I do not believe that he has committed a "high crime" or "misdemeanor"

[jafo2010]

To continue with these pseudo wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it could be debated successfully that he is indeed guilty of high crimes....murder.

The former DA in California that put Charles Manson away, and successfully convicted some 120 of 122 (rough numbers) people indicted for murder believes that as a direct result of Bush's acts of fraud that led to Iraq, it can be deemed that every American that dies there can be considered a murder, and he believes Bush should be indicted, convicted and appropriately dispatched for said crimes.  Well, the maintaining of the status quo would only serve to indict Mr. Obama as well.

So, yes, in my humble opinion, he could be impeached.