Skip to comments.The rules murdering our troops
Posted on 09/24/2009 3:19:19 AM PDT by kingattax
When enemy action kills our troops, it's unfortu nate. When our own moral fecklessness murders those in uniform, it's unforgivable.
In Afghanistan, our leaders are complicit in the death of each soldier, Marine or Navy corpsman who falls because politically correct rules of engagement shield our enemies.
Mission-focused, but morally oblivious, Gen. Stan McChrystal conformed to the Obama Way of War by imposing rules of engagement that could have been concocted by Code Pink:
* Unless our troops in combat are absolutely certain that no civilians are present, they're denied artillery or air support.
* If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to "break contact" -- to retreat.
These ROE are a cave-in to the Taliban's shameless propaganda campaign that claimed innocents were massacred every time our aircraft appeared overhead. (Afghan President Mohammed Karzai and our establishment media backed the terrorists.)
The Taliban's goal was to level the playing field -- to deny our troops their technological edge. Our enemies more than succeeded.
And what has our concern for the lives of Taliban sympathizers accomplished? The Taliban now make damned sure that civilians are present whenever they conduct an ambush or operation.
So they attack -- and we quit the fight, lugging our dead and wounded back to base.
We've been through this b.s. before. In Iraq, we wanted to show respect to our enemies, so the generals announced early on that we wouldn't enter mosques. The result? Hundreds of mosques became terrorist safe houses, bomb factories and weapons caches.
Why is this so hard to figure out? We tell our enemies we won't attack X. So they exploit X. Who wouldn't?
It isn't just that war is hell. It's that war must be hell, otherwise why would the enemy ever quit?
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Peters nails it again!
Obie should be removed from office. The libs scream when Joe Wilson utters a truth, but are damned silent when troops get killed needlessly.
Their innocent blood is on Obozo’s hands and God is the avenger of such things.
It’s obvious that Obama wants the US to lose the war on Jihad, and his Muslim pals will feel right at home here when the greater Caliphate takes over. We’ll be a third world hellhole by then. The real question is how long we’ll put up with Obama and pals. There has to be a ‘let them eat cake’ moment.
ARRENTION talk show hosts please pick this up!!!!!!Somone help our troops!!!!!!
This pisses me off to no end...
I survived as as tank commander in Vietnam by burning up my .50 cal barrels..I carried 3 extra ones strapped to the side of the turret. Instead of a regular .50 ammo can, I placed a footlocker on top the turret and filled it with 50 ammo and linked it to the machine gun.
In the woods anything thing that moved I opened fire.. no base camp attorney is going to tell me different.
I am firmly convinced that at least 40% of the names on The Wall are a direct result of Johnson and his ilk’s stupid ROE.
REPOST of a REPOSTED REPOST:
Saturday, September 12, 2009 9:32:22 AM · 126 of 3,316
MestaMachine to maine-iac7
REPOST of a REPOST
EVERYONE NEEDS TO SEE THIS!!!
Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:40:05 AM · 139 of 187
MestaMachine to RabidBartender; 444Flyer
Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:36:09 AM · 8 of 15
MestaMachine to ImpBill
THIS is why Peters, and many guys with boots on the ground, are angry at the changes in ROE and McChrystals throwing caution to the wind where it comes to protecting our troops.
He thinks our TROOPS have acted too defensively in their own best interest and caused the poor, helpless civilians humiliation.
NOTE THE DATE.
General wants more troops for Afghan war
By: The Associated Press - The Sentinel-Record - Published: 08/02/2009
MORE TROOPS: Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. general in charge of turning around the war in Afghanistan, may recommend significant changes to U.S. and NATO operations in a report due in August.WASHINGTON - The U.S. general put in charge of turning around the war in Afghanistan is likely to recommend significant changes in the campaign and may include a request for more U.S. forces that the White House is expected to resist.
Gen. Stanley McChrystals long-awaited reassessment of the war against Taliban insurgents aims for a transformation of the shaky relationship between U.S. forces and Afghan civilians as troops press a counterinsurgency strategy of clearing and holding populated areas, said officials apprised of the reports contents.
The biggest change urged in McChrystals report is a cultural shift in how U.S. and foreign troops operate - ranging from how they live and travel among the Afghan population to where and how they fight, a senior military official in Kabul said Friday.
The latest draft of the assessment also urges speeding up the training of Afghan soldiers and police and nearly doubling their numbers to roughly 400,000, said a senior defense official in Washington, one of several uniformed and civilian officials who spoke on condition anonymity because the report has not been made public.
As McChrystal readies the assessment of the war, due in two weeks, numerous U.S. officials and outsiders aware of his thinking suggest that he will request in a companion report that more American troops, probably including marines, be added next year.
Several people familiar with the work being done cautioned that McChrystal could opt not to ask for an increase at all - a recognition that President Barack Obama and other White House advisers would not look favorably on adding new numbers to U.S. forces after already agreeing to boost their ranks by 21,000 troops earlier this year.
The main recommendations for change stem from the militarys new counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, which is now designed to focus less on going after Taliban strongholds and more on protecting the local population.
The new U.S. strategy is also aimed at helping develop an Afghan government that civilians will embrace rather than siding with the insurgents, two senior military officials said. To achieve that, one official said, the latest draft of McChrystals assessment includes the following recommendations:
- Using intelligence less to hunt insurgents and more to understand local, tribal and social power structures in the areas where they operate. McChrystal is considering concentrating troops around populated areas rather than going after sparsely populated mountain areas where Taliban hide.
- Getting troops more active in fighting corruption. U.S. forces will need to take care in their dealings with local Afghan leaders to ensure that they are not perceived by the Afghan population to be empowering corrupt officials.
*PLEASE NOTE THIS PARAGRAPH IN PARTICULAR.
In preparing his assessment of the Afghan command, McChrystal found an American military culture that showed a great concern for troops protection sometimes at the expense of their relations with Afghan civilians.
To change those relations, McChrystal wants American forces to think twice about basic conduct - for instance no longer pointing their guns at people when they pass in convoy or blocking narrow roads with their convoys, while relegating Afghans to the ditches.
To deal with the most contentious aspect of those shaky relations, McChrystal has already committed to try to reduce civilian casualties by issuing new orders that restrict when troops should call in bombing strikes.
Roger that. My best friend was a year ahead of me in high school. He was drafted into the marines after he graduated. He was killed in Hue during 68 Tet.
I went to the army recruiter and told him to assign me where I can kill a lot of Vietnamese. He told me armor.
I would have a .45 cal pistol, a grease gun, a grenade launcher, main gun, a .50 cal, a 60 coaxe machine gun. I did not know I would have claymore mines at that time.
My friend rests in peace.
That was something to see - .50 barrels glowing red and sagging.
We burned up both of ours on our 1st trip up the Perfume River during Tet 68. We learned our lesson and back in Da Nang we scrounged extra barrels. For the rest of our missions we carried two spares for each gun and 500 round cans of ammo. Wed fire up 500 rounds and change barrels. Our M-60 used 1000 round belts and also had two spares, when the belt was fired up the barrel was changed. No more drooping gun barrels. We were fortunate to have mutual coverage with the guns.
I dont imagine it would be as easy on a tank. Our boats guns were on deck mounts and served by two men, barrel changes took less than a minute.
You need a bootlick General Staff, lots of bureaucratic ticket punching officers, to issue these orders.
That’s why it sucks to be combat enlisted. In the F you ranks, and have yuppie, careerist, golf loving, G4 jet dreaming pukes above you.
The idea behind that asinine order is that if we cause no harm to civilians (anyone who isnt shooting at us at the time) they will love us and support us and not join the Taliban.
What our peace freak liberals dont seem to understand is that even though the Taliban routinely detonate car and truck bombs in civilian areas - markets are a primary target - causing massive civilian casualties it doesnt seem to hurt their recruiting.
A tribal society respects strength, not kid gloves.
My father was a up from the ranks Major in Patton’s 3rd.
It was common in Europe in WWII for advancing American units to tell the mayor to tell them where the snipers and rear guard and traps were. That if any were encountered, they’d shell the village flat. After a a while it was common to encounter village representatives miles before, or the day before who came to us before possible entry.
All I know is that my son took three deployments under GWB with equanimity, but is kicking himself in the ass for re-enlisting last year. He sneers over the fact that Uncle demands to know where ALL his off-post, personal firearms are located (”because they care about soldier suicides”), yet Uncle simultaneously sets up the people at the pointed end with ROE’s that make them targets.
The ROE are tantamount to death sanctions and are so totally recklessly negligent to amount to grounds for impeachment.
I got some gloves from supply..its all a matter knowing the headspace and timing...I was on a Sheridan tank, the .50 is mounted on top the turret.
The main gun was 152mm..we had heat rounds and a “flechette” round which had 10,000 metal darts in the shell casing. The TC’s firing and control handle was moved from the sitting position and placed so the main gun and 60 could be fired from the hip while standing in the cupola..
It was a very brave Gook to rise up and attempt to fire his RPG on me..
That was a real war..and your father a warrior.
Loved firing that 152. Used to laugh when the TC opened up with the .50 - bap, bap, bap. Then on the way and the whole world shook!
If you ain’t Cav..
C-26, 3/4 Cav, 25th Inf.
C27, 1/10 Cav, 4th Inf
Tank in A troop was hit with 6 rpg’s..did not burn..I liked the shape of the turret and the front..the sides had foam that absorbed the rpgs..we added extra metal plates on the bottom for mines..the track was easy to break down..we placed rpg wire in front at night, maybe 10 claymores and some trip flares..on the side we dug a hole, filled sand bags..placed a 60..I slept on a cot..when not on lp..or guard..man what a life that was..
Does anyone note the apparent logical inconsistency in a strategy that dictates a concentration of military effort to defend civilian enclaves, but prohibits any active engagement in the vicinity of civilians? This move to static passivity will IMO prove to be an ignominious failure. It takes our highly mobile and aggressive forces and turns them into a stationary mall security force, which in turn will result in any artillery or air support actually being expended CLOSER to sensitive civilian areas.
It simply stretches credulity that these people could conceivably be reviving distant political micro-management of tactical warfare after the experience of VN.
Thanks to both of you for your service. One of my missions today is to go have a word with a local film crew who was rude to a Vietnam vet at our local senior center. I hope that a brief history lesson about why we Americans are free will suffice...
That’s what I call beging a thinker.
Replace McCrystal with Petraeus.
We had the asbestos gloves - I dont care how hard core a man was, they were needed for the .50. We grabbed the 60 barrel by the tripod.
I did like the flechette rounds, we had buckshot rounds for our M-79. There was one Coronado operation in the Delta in December 67 when they would have come in handy but the 155 battery we supported didnt have them. We dropped off five 155 self propelled howitzers with 200 tons of ammo apiece. Returning the next morning with another 200 tons each and they were down to the rounds in their turrets. They had fired all night at 0-0, 0 elevation and 0 time on the fuses. The round blew when it left the barrel. They had been hit by an infantry assault - intelligence said to expect a few mines and sniper fire! I turned out to be a sizable fight and the 9th Div was hit heavily.
Addendum - we set head space and timing by simply screwing the barrel in all the way and backing it out three clicks. Worked great - we had no gauge.
If theyre fans of Walter Cronkite it wont do much good.
You're being too kind to the Illegal Alien. The ROE are not "recklessly negligent." They're deliberately murderous monstrosities intentionally hatched by a communist, secret Mudslime, traitor WH occupant who bitterly hates America, Americans, and, especially, the American military, with the explicit purpose of creating a bloody meat grinder that will get as many of our fine troops and Marines killed as possible. This is why pubbies should refuse to fund any of the war unless the ROE are rescinded.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Headquarters, United States Army Vietnam
APO San Francisco 96375
23 August 1969
AWARD OF THE DISTINGUISHED SERVICE CROSS
1. TC 320. The following AWARD is announced posthumously.
CARLSON, GARY W. CAPTAIN ARMOR United States Army
Troop C, 3d Squadron, 4th Cavalry, 25th Infantry Division
Awarded: Distinguished Service Cross
Date action: 19 June 1969
Theater: Republic of Vietnam
Reason: For extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations involving conflict with an armed hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam: Captain Carlson distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous actions on 19 June 1969 as troop commander during a reconnaissance-in-force operation. When the troop came under fire from a well-concealed enemy force, he immediately led his men in an assault on the hostile fortifications. Realizing that the crossfire was impeding the movement of his troop, he single-handedly assaulted and destroyed the most strategic hostile position. He then directed his fire against another enemy position, silencing it with hand grenades and rifle fire. Spotting a wounded comrade lying exposed to the enemy barrage, Captain Carlson braved the fusillade to move the man to safety. He then returned to the center of conflict to evacuate another casualty. As he returned to his vehicle, he was knocked to the ground by a rocket-propelled grenade which rendered his command vehicle inoperative. Braving a hail of fire to reach another vehicle, he resumed control of his troop. It was while he was directing this assault on the enemy that he was mortally wounded by enemy fire. Captain Carlson’s extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty, at the cost of his life, were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.
Authority: By direction of the President under the provisions of the Act of Congress, approved 25 July 1963.
He was one of our CO’s. I was lead tank in this battle..began early in the morning and lasted during the night..
Sun Tzu would not do it this way.
“RULES OF ENGAGEMENT REVISITED”
Was just getting ready to ping you