Posted on 09/13/2006 6:13:58 AM PDT by pabianice
Haven't seen this posted yet. Fox is reporting that recently one of our UAVs filmed in live time a Taliban funeral in Afghanistan at which 190 Taliban leaders were shown lined-up in ranks. Fox is showing the photo and reporting that US policy forbids the killing of Taliban in cemetaries and thus the US watched the funeral but took no action to kill the 190 murderers attending. If this is true -- tough question here -- how is Bush any better than Clinton regarding the war on terror?
As you state later, the ROE approved at that level is extremely broad to the point of being more an expression of the CIC's intent than rules on the execution of that intent. The NCA does not dictate tactical level rules of engagement. They don't have the visiblity required to micro-manage at that level in all the theaters we currently operate in.
Bunk! Where were your so-called theater "Rules of Engagement" when we dropped the big potato on Hiroshima?
Even LBJ knew about rules of engagement in Vietnam with his "they can't drop a bomb anywhere unless I tell them they can" pronouncement...
And while I agree with your argument that the president isn't responsible for every thing that goes awry in a military engagement I would continue to point out that he is responsible for the rules that the military fights by and should not claim ignorance about sacred status of cemetaries...OBL got away in Tora Bora when diplomatic channels got crossed with the Pakistani government and, though frustrated, I chalked it up to the fog of war. But, now, with this many targets of opportunity walking free to terrorize the world and perhaps the blood relatives I have fighting in the GWOT, I am chalking it up to a guy who barely made his obligatory Air Guard drills (and there is STILL plenty of rumor out there to make me dubious if he even did that)....
And you call the President a "fool". It's almost amusing.
Okay, perhaps "idiot" is a better word (unless you were laughing at yourself).
They do not dictate how such engagements may occur, but they clearly dictate the conditions necessary for such an engagement to occur.
The act of firing on a live target is something that is taken very seriously, and the necessary conditions for this are not left for a field commander (self defense is always permitted). They are clearly defined from above. The problem occurs when the nature of conflict changes. It is difficult to anticipate the impacts of those changes apriori. So if the law of war says we dont fire on funeral precessions, we do not fire on cemetaries, unless we find later that the enemy is using cemetaries in unlawful manner, and then the ROE is modified.
I have no idea if this was the case here. Just wanted to point out that ROE, while not intended to micro-manage the fight, is intended to make sure lower levels do not inadvertantly create a national embaressment, or worse a crisis by mistake.
And occasionally, it has resulted in missed oppportunities.
We arent fighting a war...its all posturing.
You will see more waving of the bloody shirt this fall.
Perhaps that was about when you retired from the Navy? That was 1945. The current year is 2006. Believe it or not...times have changed. However, it still takes Presidential authority to employ nukes.
"Even LBJ knew about rules of engagement in Vietnam with his "they can't drop a bomb anywhere unless I tell them they can" pronouncement..."
Thank you for supporting my point. You want Bush to be another LBJ. Fortunately, Bush and the US Military does not share your opinion.
"But, now, with this many targets of opportunity walking free to terrorize the world and perhaps the blood relatives I have fighting in the GWOT..."
Stop right there. Why don't you tell the world exactly what that so called Predator picture has captured. Tell us exactly who those folks were and what they were doing. Give us the exact reason why the decision was made not to attack the group, and provide your source for that reason. THEN carry on with your rant about why people aren't conducting this war like you want them to. Since you obviously feel you have the big picture here, I want to know what your sources are regarding this incident. Or...are you relying on the MSM to help form your opinions. Your BS anti-Bush National Guard comments sure make it seem like you are better at spewing MSM trash than well supported arguments. Offer some indication you aren't just some sponge of MSM lies and deception.
I understand your point, and agree with it. But it is being suggested in this thread that the President had a direct role in our decision not to hit whoever is pictured in the subject picture of this thread. To someone who would make such an argument I point out the following:
That might have been the case if Afghanistan were not a combat environment, but it obviously is. In such an environment ROE is prepared and modified at much lower levels than peacetime ROE or ROE written prior to the initiation of hostilities. It must be that way because of the dynamic environment our troops fight in. Prior to invading Iraq our ROE was relatively simple and consisted primarily of direction from the NCA. During that time, unless it was a matter of self-defense, we required a very high level of clearance (not quite NCA) to employ ordinance. During our invasion, that was reduced to requiring a high level of clearance for certain sensitive targets. At various times since then, no high level clearance has been required at all. The same is true in Afghanistan. To suggest that the President or even the NCA currently writes (or could/should even be intimately familiar with) the countless and always evolving theater ROE ignores the work of large numbers of command level staff officers and lawyers whose sole purpose in life is to prepare theater ROE.
With regard to this particular incident, there has been no reason given for not taking out the targets depicted in the released picture. There is media speculation supported by unsourced "Army" officers, but that is all. Clearly, within SWA we are allowed to engage enemy forces in cemeteries. We've done it many times in a variety of scenarios. Rather than blaming the President for a decision that was most likely made by folks with a vast amount of information and outstanding visibility of the entire picture (let's just say more than one poor quality black and white photo still), maybe we should stop knee jerking into hysteria everytime the media baits the hook.
Having no further knowledge than what has been reported, it is difficult to judge. Generally, unless your under fire, you want to have cooberating sources to ensure your shooting at the right guys. If the on scene commander had intel that a group of AQ were gathering and the predator was sent to watch for them and attack, then they should have fired. If the predator was out scouting and came across a formation of unidentified "people", you would probably not expect them to shoot unless you could discern from the picture who they were. It may have only been confirmed later that they were bad guys. Or maybe it was a communication failure that the OSC did not know they were bad guys. Not enough public info, and I dont believe the MSM waits to get it right.
Now, he'd be acceptable in most other times but he happens to be the president in, what is IMHO, the most critical challenges to our country in our history and he seems to be full of inconsistencies--i.e. his "worker program" for illegals, his failure to go to the mat for an increase in military equipment (more SDI space interceptors) and manpower (either pay more bonus for volunteer enlistment or institute a draft), not to mention his inconsistencies on core values--i.e. "because life begins at conception, stem cell research 'bad' BUT Plan B "good" (where the "H" is the philosophical difference?). His spending mirrors something I used to do in Olongapo Phillipine bars on "B Girls" after a 9 month "Yankee Station" deployment in the 60s, his No Child Left Behind is a travesty right out of Ted Kennedy's text book, his "compassionate conservatism" is more compassion than conservatism, and his leadership qualities are a joke. Succinctly, he is the embodiment of his "Read My Lips" old man and his worst-president-in-history great-grand-uncle Franklin Pierce! End of rant.
Bingo. Yet on this thread we have Freepers accusing Bush of being an idiot, a fool, the same as Clinton, calling the war on terror a farce, claiming we have already been defeated and and our efforts in Afghanistan are phony. All that over MSM speculation over a single video still from a UAV camera. That defines "knee jerk hysteria." And you are exactly right in your concluding comment except I'd add one thing. The MSM has proven time and again that they aren't actually interested in getting things "right" no matter how long it takes. In fact, they often purposely get things wrong...even if they have to manufacture the evidence to accomplish that.
Rant away. You've clearly established the substance behind your rants. Perhaps that explains why despite your claims that someone who expresses your opinions on this site is likely to be banned, you are still here. I would guess people stopped paying attention to your rants years ago.
We are not serious about the war on terror.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
I am literally almost sick.
>>I believe that both God and allah know<<
There is no "Allah."
>>Because a civilized society doesn't just kill for no reason. Period. Grow up.<<
And you think killing Taliban is "killing for no reason"?
If the people prosecuting this war aren't any more on the ball than you, we have lost.
There is no rule of engagement regarding shooting the enemy in grave yards, but the rules of the Geneva Convention are so vague that it lays all operations open to charges from the World Court. The President of Serbia is not the only one that can be charged with war crimes, our own President and his administration is subject to the same danger, much less some General or Lt. in the field trying to fight a war.
The whole situation is STUPID.
Hanabal to his best friend just after the Battle of Zama (words to the effect as I don't have the reference book with me): "They (Romans) are killing the wounded and prisoners as we speak, we would not have done so if we had been the victor...but there is none to stop them"
My point: "our president and his administration" is leading the most powerful nation the world has ever known; so whom could ever make a charge of "war crimes" stocl?
good place for a chemical rocket.
he is saying the media is misreporting the incident, and that the problem is that we couldn't get bombs on target before they disperced(fast enough) and that it wasn't a problem with getting permission or anything. Maybe this predator was unarmed(some are)
14 posted on 09/14/2006 6:45:25 AM EDT by Echo Talon
I heard Lt. Col. Cowan say essentially the same thing on a follow-up to the original story on Fox & Friends.
he heard what Cowan has said and still keeps up the misinformation, I guess Newt has an odd way of running for president, he has lost lots of credibility with me and dont think that i could or would vote for him if he was head of the ticket.
"(implying if I were making the decision things would be better, he's acting like a democrat or at least using their playbook)"
Newt's been using that playbook for the last several months. He is extremely knowledgeable, but that makes him smart enough to know exactly what he's doing.
Elevating his position by diminishing President Bush's efforts puts him in the despicable column, especially when he uses false information to do it.
I think his attitude of superiority will eliminate him as a contender for head of the Republican ticket. If he should get so lucky, I've got a DVD of Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Conyers, Clinton, Boxer, Durbin, et al to watch just before I go to the polls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.