Posted on 03/06/2010 10:49:57 AM PST by jazusamo
The recent battle in Marjah in Afghanistan's Helmand province was a key test case for new rules of engagement that emphasized protecting civilians rather than killing insurgents. The town was taken, but whether that was because of the new rules or despite them remains to be seen.
The rules of engagement are probably the most restrictive ever seen for a war of this nature. NATO forces cannot fire on suspected Taliban fighters unless they are clearly visible, armed and posing a direct threat. Buildings suspected of containing insurgents cannot be targeted unless it is certain that civilians are not also present. Air strikes and night raids are limited, and prisoners have to be released or transferred within four days, making for a 96-hour catch-and-release program.
In Marjah, the enemy quickly adapted to the rules, which led to bizarre circumstances such as Taliban fighters throwing down their weapons when they were out of ammunition and taunting coalition troops with impunity or walking in plain view with women behind them carrying their weapons like caddies. If World War II had been fought with similar rules, the battles would still be raging. Paradoxically, America's most successful post-conflict reconstructions were in Germany and Japan, where enemy-occupied towns like Marjah were flattened without a second thought.
U.S. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the NATO commander, said, "The Afghan people are at the center of our mission. In reality, they are our mission." Yet protecting civilians is difficult in an unconventional conflict in which the battlefield has no front lines...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
God forbid it, but I suspect we would see some rapid changes should the shoe be on the other foot.
So is that of our retired Military.
How one votes AFFECTS US ALL!
It ain’t dead until congress is recessed and we flip at least 1 in Nov, or we will be fighting this battle for 3 more years!
OBAMANOMICS—TRICKLE DOWN DESTRUCTION of the economy
Bambi doesn’t keep his promises...so buyer beware!
SET THEIR LOCAL AND DC LINES ON FIRE!
PLEASE ASK THEM TO REPEAL THE BIG NEW FEES in TRICARE for Life, the retired Military over 65 secondary health ins. which they passed in a DOD bill. They promised our Military these benefits, and our Military have earned them.
Sen Scott Brown’s number is 202-224-4543
Capitol Hill switchboard is 202-224-3121
Lots of local demwit phone numbers on this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2408217/posts
Rename, repackage, rewrite it a tad smaller, and sell another pig in a poke. NO COLAs for granny, retired Military or retired fed employees. BIG NEW fees for Tricare for Life retired over 65 Military’s secondary health ins. (DOD bill already passed, delayed but goes into effect 2011 NEEDS TO BE REPEALED!
OBAMA’s WAR ON SENIORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2433867/posts/
New Dem mantra: Woof, woof eat dog food granny....ala let them eat cake.
Obama says slight fix will extend Social Security, http://townhall.com/news/us/2010/02/19/obama_says_slight_fix_will_extend_social_security
Health Care Rationing for Seniors Another Problem in New Obama Plan http://www.lifenews.com/bio3058.html
Medicare tax may apply to investment income (ObamaCare tax hike)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2460988/posts
Obama: No reduced Medicare benefits in health care reform
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/28/obama.health.care/index.html
Will healthcare reform mean cuts in Medicare for seniors?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1017/will-healthcare-reform-mean-cuts-in-medicare-for-seniors
Health Reform’s Hidden Victims Young people and seniors would pay a high price for ObamaCare.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574306303720472842.html
SOCIALIZED MED THREAD http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2464538/posts
MILITARY & Retired MILITARY
Veterans’ G.I. Bill benefits MIA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2464680/posts
TRI CARE FOR LIFE This from a google search:
http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/05/tricare-for-life-is-obama-trying-to.html
This option would help reduce the costs of TFL, as well as costs for Medicare, by introducing minimum out-of pocket requirements for beneficiaries. Under this option, TFL would not cover any of the first $525 of an enrollee’s cost-sharing liabilities for calendar year 2011 and would limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $4,725 in Medicare cost sharing that the beneficiary incurred. (Because all further cost sharing would be covered by TFL, enrollees could not pay more than $2,888 in cost sharing in that year.) http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9925/12-18-HealthOptions.pdf
Bill Would Restrict Veterans’ Health Care Options 11/06/09
Buyer and McKeon Offer Amendments to Protect Veterans and TRICARE Beneficiaries
Congress plans to block Tricare fee increases
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w/
By Rick Maze - Staff writer, Oct 7, 2009
Tricare fee increases imposed last week by the Defense Department will be repealed by a provision of the compromise 2010 defense authorization bill unveiled Wednesday by House and Senate negotiators.
The fee increases were announced on Sept. 30 and took effect on Oct. 1, but the defense bill, HR 2647, includes a provision barring any fee increases until the start of fiscal 2011.
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Bill Matz, president of the National Association for Uniformed Services, said the announcement of fee increases was shocking considering that the Obama administration promised earlier this year to hold off on any new fee Tricare fee increases until fiscal 2011.
“President Obama and DoD assured NAUS and the entire military family earlier this year that there would rightly be no increases in any Tricare fees” in fiscal 2010, Matz said. “We took them at their word, and I can’t believe that a co-pay increase like this was allowed to go forward,” he added.
Thanks, it’s good to hear first hand.
When we attacked Afghanistan, after 9-11, we had Mullah Omar in our sights. The aircraft commander requested permission to fire!
Some woman JAG holdover from the Clinton admin denied permission.
Rumsfield went berzerk! Target rich environment and a JAG officer said “no!”
Excellent post. And this same nation wants to give this foreign enemy the same legal rights as ordinary citizens when they attack us. Pathetic.
I read an article a couple of weeks ago, wish I had saved it, that detailed how NGOs are making these demands on the ROE. The NGOs are “international human rights groups,” including the UN. And then we have McChrystal’s infamous apology.....
We NEED to get some of those military guys into Congress!!!!
Absolutely agree and there are a fair number of veterans running this coming November.
In all fairness, Obama and his "progressive socialists" only made it worse. Under Bush the rules were already set. I watched the entire development with the certain knowledge that the ROEs were costing American lives from the getgo, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Bush for years kept insisting that we were dealing with the "religion of peace." Until he sobered up; metaphorically.
In the last 40 years, the nature of war has changed completely and the U.S. "attitude" towards the change has been incompetent, bordering on criminal.
First of all, is the notion that the purpose of war is to "win their hearts and minds." Bullshit. That might work with human beings, but not with muslims.
The purpose of war is to win quickly, for the sake of both sides.
The second crime is declaring the mosques off limits, even when used as weapons and ammunition dumps, but also as sniper and sniper spotter posts. Big mistake. If a mosque joins the war, willingly or otherwise, it is a fair and immediate target. It is absurd that both sides of the enemy (the active ones and the passive ones) can claim that the "others" coerced them into allowing the abuse of the mosques.
Whether through the draft or as a voluntary army, I would refuse to fight with such ROEs. I would not allow my sons or daughters to do so either. Fighting for liberty is one thing; Dying for political brownie points by fat cowards sitting in DC is quite another. No compromise possible there.
Should we withraw from the sandmaggot snake pit (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pkistan)? Absolutely.
Fight to win, or get the hell out.
I have nothing good to say. Good bye.
No comment.
Sad, sick Obumpa.
Don't forget Viet Nam. When children were sent with bombs into clubs and bars there, it didn't matter much to the enemy if Vietnamese were also present...
Thanks, Gene. I remembered the thread but hadn’t posted and didn’t find it. The list was pinged to another posting of that Sowell thread.
I’m really to glad to see the Vets taking a stand in the political realm, even for the Democrat party. I believe DC will be better for it.
Do not blame P Bush or even the current Hemmroid N Chef for these asinine Rules of Engagement.
The blame for this, “Forever War” squarely belongs on the shoulders of Incompetent Pretty Boy Generals and Admirals for whom Victory is not an option..
They must be retired and replaced by Lions not professional Power Point Presenters and GQ Magazine Models talking about how they “Can keep up with the men in PT”, or the need to pave the way for a “Gay new world”...their focus on everything but Victory.
There are plenty of True Warriors in the Pipeline and there is nothing disloyal about demanding our men and women of the Armed Forces are led by Lions not House Cats.
W.
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.