Posted on 02/15/2010 11:31:05 AM PST by Steelfish
Troops: Strict War Rules Slow Afghan Offensive Sign in to Recommend
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS February 15, 2010
MARJAH, Afghanistan (AP) -- Some American and Afghan troops say they're fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap -- strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.
Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.
''I understand the reason behind it, but it's so hard to fight a war like this,'' said Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, 20, of Altoona, Iowa. ''They're using our rules of engagement against us,'' he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.
If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon -- or if they did not personally watch him drop one.
What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can't count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.
''This is difficult,'' Lance Cpl. Michael Andrejczuk, 20, of Knoxville, Tenn., said Monday. ''We are trained like when we see something, we obliterate it. But here, we have to see them and when we do, they don't have guns.''
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
This has been going on since last spring when McCrystal, ‘bummers lap dog, was put in charge.
How many of you remember this story from last Sept? This told the public about these new ROE. Where was the out cry? They should have been recinded long before now.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/75036.html
“WE'RE PINNED DOWN: 4 U.S. MARINES DIE IN AFGHAN AMBUSH”
August was the deadliest month of the whole war for our troops = AND EACH MONTH BREAKS A NEW RECORD...because of the new ROE - Rules of Engagement...
which are NOT to provide air cover for our troops, even when ambushed, pinned down and being killed. (the rationale for these new ROE’s admits that it will cause more deaths for our troops now but that it will be worth it in the long run. Worth it for WHO?)
This is treason. Pure and simple. That is aiding and abetting the enemy, who now knows THEY have the cover, not our troops - and they are ramping it up.
The MSM have been ignoring this almost a year - and are now treating it like its news - of course, I guess it is to a lot of people who pay little attention.
But for the AP & NYT to actually put it in print must mean they can't keep a lid on it anymore - I'm praying really hard that someone will finally make an uproar big enough to rescind these idiotic ROE - the Taliban could fight forever under these one sided ‘rules’
And if they capture a terrorist - excuse me, I see we're back to ‘insurgents’ - in the battlefield, they are no longer allowed to question them - but must immediately read them ‘their Miranda rights’. Excuse me, how could it be THEIR Miranda Rights? They are not U.S. citizens.
this costs more of our troops lives. There
s m ore - but I am very tired - and I have my dear grandson back in that hell hole on his second deployment.
People, there has been a coup in the U.S. - the WH has been taken over by an American/Constitution hating Marxist and a gang of Chicago street thugs - and their puppeteers behind the curtain.
It looks like even the democrats are realizing it - and are bailing. Batten down the hatches...
Pray hard - fight harder.
“So, are you saying that we should do the same to the Afghans?”
Good God! Read the entire comment. My point was that we cannot gain the active support of the Afghan people (e.g., they won’t provide us with information such as where they last saw the enemy, which villagers are working with AQ, etc.) if it appears to them that we are not determined to finish the job. Because they know that if we “do the same to the Afghans” as we did to the South Vietnamese, the anti-Taliban Aghans, and their children and their parents, and their cousins, are as good as dead.
“our guys were winning until Nixon caved in to rabble rousers and leftists here at home.”
Nixon was elected on a promise of Peace with Honor. His Vietnamization program achieved just that.
The Viet Cong were destroyed as a significant force in our response to the Tet attack in early 68.
When the Watergate flimflam was perpetrated by the left, the South Vietnamese Army had demonstrated their ability to defeat the north on the battlefield, and almost all our troops were out of the country.
South Vietnam could have protected itself with the same support that Red China and the Sovs were giving to the north. When we pulled our troops out, we promised them our support.
Peace with Honor in Vietnam would have been a ghastly defeat for the left everywhere. Watergate was as much about that as it was any two-bit burglary.
As soon as Nixon was hamstrung, Kennedy and the rest of the leftist slime cut off funding for support to South Vietnam.
That’s where South Vietnam was lost, not on the battlefield, and not by Nixon.
And until there is an agreement to open up oil drilling here at home, the ME wars will rage on; with our own oil, sever relations with the Saudis, with Kuwait etc. and be independent. But this can't be done overnight.
“Sounds almost like you are advocating Desertion.”
Well, it sounds to me like you are being extremely literal minded. So I’d better come right out and say it. No, I do not advocate desertion.
Anyhow, please excuse the gallows humor. But when a general (correction, a colonel) implies that a soldier may be acting with criminal intent if he returns fire on somebody that’s shooting at him, or expects him to make a cost-benefit assessment of the public relations value of defending himself when he comes under attack, the present unpleasantness in Afghanistan begins to resemble Somalia, but on a much larger scale.
This smacks of the culture of the political correctness that led up to the Ft Hood massacre, when numerous warnings of Major Hasan’s deeply disturbed mental state were ignored by fellow officers and the FBI. Or the recent near tragedy over Detroit that highlighted the persistent refusal of our government to profile airline passengers with a high likelihood of being terrorists. Or how about the fact that our president, and the Democrats in general, have been pushing all along to tear down the wall that separates military and civilian law, which could potentially put our combat soldiers in legal jeopardy. The half heartedness of our leadership in the Afghan is bad news. That’s the context of my pessimism.
If the Vietnam taught us anything, it’s don’t dick around when you send soldiers into a shooting war. If you’re going to do it, then bomb Hiphong Harbor or whatever else it takes. If you’re overly concerned about how the Russians might react, or about negative “world opinion”, then keep the boys home.
Same thing with Afghanistan. If our government won’t be able to resist the inevitable demands by some European judge to extradite soldiers for to some Belgian or Spanish court for “Human Rights” violations, then we shouldn’t be over there, putting all kinds of restraints on our soldiers, just to please some so-called friends.
A few months following 9-11, a small number of American special forces types hooked up with Uzbek tribesmen. With our air and artillery suppport the Uzbeks routed the Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies. They didn’t stop running until they got to Pakistan. All this proved that the Afghans in general despised the Taliban government. So we can win their support and the war if are willing to give our army what it takes to do what armies are designed to do.
True. Point taken.
Obviously, I misunderstood your position, Thank you for the further explanation.
DG
“And remember infamous Kronkite, claiming Tet was our defeat, we were through.”
Under a false flag the whole time, pretending to be a loyal American.
The generals seem to be operating on the principle that one dead civilian creates x more insurgents vs. one dead insurgent is one less insurgent. I dbout it’s a courage thing....it’s calculating risking our own troops vs. civilians to “win the hearts and minds” of the Afghanees.
I just don’t get how this is going to work while you’re in the middle of an offensive to “cleanse” the Taliban from a region, especially since they forecast they were coming and their ROE’s are so obvious that the Taliban are now using them to their advantage.
Seems like a good time to regroup and rethink their approach.
The “grand old man” of the evening news or whatever. A rat and a liar on a grand scale!
The generals have an interesting theory, but I’m not sure it’s effective. That’s not the way they did the surge in Iraq. And the surge in Iraq worked.
There’s a story about Lyndon Johnson. When he was running for Congress in the 1940’s he is said to have told a campaign manager to spread a rumor that his opponent was having sex with a pig. His advisor told him that he hadn’t heard anything about that. Johnson replied,”Neither have I. I just want to hear him have to deny it”. I felt the same way about the “desertion” thing.
So this is to thank you for your last response. I really appreciate your getting me off the hook.
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.