What I am referring to is an article posted here a couple of months ago about a US platoon caught in an ambush and pinned down by a couple hundred Taliban. They desperately requested artillery support fire but were refused because there were civilians in that area and the new policy doesn’t allow it (in order to win Afghan popular support). The platoon commander told them that he could see the area in question, and there were no civilians there, but was still refused. Eventually they managed to fight their way out without support, but with additional casulaties.
I am for sending whatever troops the commander needs, as long as the mission makes sense. But the strategey being used now will not, IMHO work. We will likely win every battle and lose the war (and there’s your Vietnam comparison).
I saw a report also in which FReepers were blaming ROE, when further investigation revealed it was do to other factors. Then guess what/who further report blamed? Take a look: McClatchy report by Jonathan Landay: Report: “Rules of engagement led to soldiers’ deaths.” A detailed follow up:
The lack of timely air support - was a consequence of the manpower and equipment shortages bequeathed by the Bush administrations failure to secure Afghanistan against a resurgence of the Taliban, al-Qaida and allied groups before turning to invade Iraq.
The denial of heavy artillery fire to those trapped in Ganjgal also has roots in the Bush administrations decision to divert resources to Iraq and the resulting stress on the U.S. military.
See the agenda there? What a crock.