Perhaps you could work the ROE question in next week???
We can imagine what his opinion would be after saying this:
We brought in gunships to hit these guys as they were putting these bombs in place. It takes a while to set up a roadside bomb and we bring them in and get them. We literally took out thousands of roadside bombers. It was devastatingly successful. And we haven’t replicated that capability in Afghanistan, which makes absolutely no sense!
.
That will make for a fine question next go-around
FWIW, here’s his answer on FR to a question about Bush’s ROEs:
American Soldiers and Marines must have the ability to
1) destroy the enemy
2) protect themselves
These requirements are interpreted by battlefield commanders who adopt specific rules according to the area of operations. For example: a crowded city is not a free-fire zone, while a situation like the second battle of Fallujah where the civilian population is evacuated is much different. Urban fighting is extremely difficult, because the enemy is often revealed only as they expose weapons immediately prior to their attack. Most battlefield commanders take this into consideration when laying out rules of engagement in specific situations. My recommendation is always to enact ROE’s that favor the survival of U.S. Troops.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1880600/posts?page=179#179