Posted on 04/02/2008 11:15:32 PM PDT by pissant
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter is scheduled to sit down with top Pentagon officials Thursday to discuss concerns over the rules of engagement for American troops in Afghanistan, including 3,200 Marines newly deployed to that country.
The meeting with the staff director of the Joints Chiefs of Staff was arranged after Hunter scheduled and later canceled a news conference in Washington on Wednesday morning to discuss his concerns that U.S. troops had to deal with sometimes conflicting rules of engagement in Afghanistan.
Hunter, R-El Cajon and the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, also was slated to discuss his continuing concerns that not enough NATO troops are on the ground in Afghanistan, which the U.S. invaded in late 2001 following the 9/11 terror attacks.
The news conference was called off, Hunter said, because some of his concerns had already been allayed and that much of what he wanted to talk about involves classified material.
"What I want to do is make sure there is a consistency in the rules of engagement," he said during a telephone interview.
Hunter said he wants to make sure that U.S. forces operate exclusively under U.S. rules of engagement and not those governing NATO troops. The NATO rules are considered stricter than those that apply to the U.S. military, he said.
For months, Hunter has also complained that NATO countries should be willing to place more of their troops in Afghanistan. He was against proposals that surfaced last year calling for more Marines to join the fight in Afghanistan, saying he believed that the 26 NATO nations should bear a greater share of the commitment.
Earlier this year, the Pentagon announced it was sending 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan this spring for what is billed as a one-time deployment only to help combat an expected uprising by the Taliban as the weather warms.
Few Marine Corps forces have been called to serve in Afghanistan since the ouster of the Taliban shortly after the 2001 invasion.
"One reason we're there with the Marines now is because NATO countries are refusing to send more troops," Hunter said. "I think it's an illustration that NATO has largely become a social organization with little appetite for continuing the fight. We need to press our allies."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other Pentagon leaders recently tried to sway NATO to send more troops, but came away largely unsuccessful.
There are roughly 31,000 U.S. troops now in Afghanistan compared with about 47,000 NATO troops. Earlier this week, President Bush said he hoped a NATO summit taking place in Romania this week would lead to more troops commitments from its member nations.
The GOP pissed on the plums by not nominating this patriot.
what could have been Ping...
I hope he runs for U.S. Senator.
I heard him on Mike Reagan’s radio show yesterday talking about borders and Ramos and Compean.
I hope he travels the country for the next 4 years and promotes constitutional conservatism. Then runs in 2012.
Whether or not the people of this country realize it, Duncan Hunter will be sorely missed in Washington when his term expires. I sure hope someone has the sense to find a place for him in the next administration.
I’ve said it before and will say it again, the Republican party blew it, big time, when they dismissed Hunter as our candidate. Stupid party, indeed.
As I have said right along, Hunter was the only adult conservative who was in the race.
Hunter’s Marine son returned in Nov. from his tour in Afghanistan.
All the folks on FR who didn’t want Hunter because he served 27 years in Congress with background in National Security, Military, etc.
and in the lead for years on border issues.
Having pressed the White House on his Border Fence legislation which was passed some time back. Now they are moving on it.
I really don’t care to hear FReepers bitching about McCain
when they could have backed the Real Conservative, Duncan Hunter. Many were interested in the late folks who entered the race because they were Governors or Senators.
Polls, electability, celebrity and articulate oratory aren’t the best indicators to use for choosing a leader? Who knew? I suppose three Democratic Senaturds are thankful for that ignorance though.
"The NATO rules are considered stricter than those that apply to the U.S. military, he said."
"For months, Hunter has also complained...".
"He was against proposals that surfaced last year calling for more Marines to join the fight in Afghanistan, saying he believed that the 26 NATO nations should bear a greater share of the commitment."
I can't recently recall such a slanted news report that portrays someone in as negative light. "Hunter...complained" ? Please.
I agree. He was my choice.
Very true, SoCalPol...
Hunter’s problem as a candidate all along hinged on two issues he couldn’t and wouldn’t extricate himself from so that he would appear to be “independent minded” and free of the Bush globalists and the neocons running The White House and policy:
1) As a loyal Repub, he couldn’t bring himself to bash Bush on the Border fence (with lack of funding and the snails pace work with very few miles of the double fence actually completed as called for in the law) and the Invasion (Bush’s refusal to put the National Guard or Army on the Border and shut it down so that 5,000 to 10,000 illegals wouldn’t keep sneaking in) and
2) He was and is pro-war and had no intention of drawing down U.S. troops if elected. The country however was and is decidedly sick and tired of Iraq and the blood and financial price we’re paying dearly for there. On this issue alone, like McCain, Hunter kept sounding the military “solution” to the war when he knew there WAS and IS no “military solution”. It’s a guerilla war fought in p.c. style because Bush refused early on to bomb the scumbags due to the collateral damage and certain international outrage at any bombing (Everyone knows the skanka hide in hospitals, schools and churches where we couldn’t bomb). Hunter’s gung-ho approach bordered on McLame’s and his 100 years of our involvement there. It was a calculated risk, and it failed.
The sheepherders did a fine job of removing the best man we've had in a long time. I'm still sick of the posters here who absolutely loved his postions, but continually called him a lost cause.......way to go, ye of little faith but great on pragmatism.
FMCDH(BITS)
McLame’s and his 100 years of our involvement there. It was a calculated risk, and it failed.
You have bought into the leftwing rant on the 100 years.
That was ment in terms that we have used in post war ie Europe, Japan, South Korea.
Those who are tired of the war In Iraq can STFU as it isn’t just Iraq but the survival of our form of government and freedom or religion.
I have several relatives who have served in Iraq and Afgan. and still are. They know why we are there.
*globalists and the neocons running The White House and policy:*
Better that than your L Ron Paul idiots who think if we don’t defend our country, the enemy will just go away.
I have talked to to many of his supporters who also think 9/11 was staged.
The L Ron Paul anti war, anti Israel, anti Jewish, are no better than the other far left enemy of our country.
The only true Reagan Conservative in the race, and he got hosed by the GOP, by the media, and even by so-called conservatives right here on FR.
That was, and is shameful.
I am still in shock at where we are now in this race. How did it come to this when the choices we had were so much better? Hunter was, and is, the best of the best. If he does run again, the only thing I wish he would do is to get a really good PR man working for him. Like it or not, that may have helped a lot to get his name out there.
Meanwhile, I’m going to talk about him and keep up on what he’s up to. As somebody else said, I believe he’ll be sorely missed when he leaves congress, and I hope he runs for Senator.
This is a story about Afghanistan, and all you folks want to do is talk about Duncan Hunter. He lost already, get over it.
This is sad-my daughter’s friend just joined the Air Force and last weekend she visited while on her first leave. She told me that “we” aren’t doing sh*t over in Iraq and we are only there for the oil. That’s what she has been told. She hasn’t been to Iraq, she is training in another state.
This was in response of me telling her of all the good that I’ve read about on MilBlogs and Michael Yon’s blog. She said no. It really upset me. She’s only 20. The only thing I could think of to say was “Hey, at least you have a job”.
It bothered me for days that that was the information she received while in training. Especially being a new recruit.
Yes, I do miss my Hunter pings. It was my tagline for awhile. sigh......
Why does it bother you that much?
..just in case :)
Amen. He needs to get his name out there. Part of the problem is that he’s not a “maverick” so the media ignores him. Maybe if McCain wins, Hunter can get some face time with the press for being McCain’s maverick on these issues. We can hope.
“Hunter said he wants to make sure that U.S. forces operate exclusively under U.S. rules of engagement and not those governing NATO troops.”
Common sense.....we’ll miss it!
The person who joined the AF is being handed
the usual far left line from who knows.
I have several relatives who have served in Iraq with the 1st Marine Div.. On their first tours they were the first ones to go into Bagdad in 03 Many relatives have served various tours including Afgan.
I have Marine, Navy, Army and Air Force relatives serving
including a Dr. Most have college degrees and or special training.
They would not agree with your dau’s friend.
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.