Posted on 06/27/2010 2:31:07 PM PDT by Crush
The US Report was one in a minority of voices in the political blogosphere months ago when we raised the issue of the Rules of Engagement for US forces, partly in response to reading milblogs as well as following dispatches filed by war correspondent Michael Yon.
And Congress, at least, appears to be mindful. Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) issued a statement on Friday after sending a letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (MO-4) and Ranking Member Howard “Buck” McKeon (CA-25). Jones’ statement said he is “requesting a Full Committee classified hearing on Rules of Engagement and Tactical Directives in Afghanistan.”
Jones’ statement also said fellow House Republicans Jeff Miller (FL-1) and Doug Lamborn (CO-5) joined him in signing the letter, and that this “action comes on the back of growing concern both inside and outside the military over the significant restrictions placed on U.S. service members regarding when and how they can engage the enemy in Afghanistan.”
Herschel Smith at The Captain’s Journal does an excellent roundup on the conversations in the blogosphere and traditional media. Smith is one of the few writing about the military I am comfortable quoting. One reason is that he identifies himself. Another is that he writes about technical matters on a layperson’s level. I trust his voice.
Summing up information from various sources, Smith wrote about the ROE, "We cannot achieve sustained tactical success with the current rules of engagement. They simply aren’t rules suited to win a counterinsurgency campaign. But the report is more stark for the sad and anecdotal report of the state of the population. The villagers are laughing at U.S. troops."
Bloggers are talking about more than Gen. David Petraeus, however. Consider Stripes Central at Stars and Stripes...
(Excerpt) Read more at theusreport.com ...
This is one of the reasons the Democrats don't want any of the Viet Nam deaths to be counted as part of the War, and they actually tried to keep them off the Memorial.
Once the Democrats found they couldn't keep this up if they wanted to continue in office they loosened up on the nonsense. Still, that became modified by the White House war-room where the President personally approved the details of air operations.
What Karzai didn't know when he first got involved in the ROE discussions was that our Democrats can't tell the difference between an accident and a purposeful act. Most of them will, given the chance, argue that it's not possible for human beings to differentiate between the two things.
The problem remains ~ the Democrats have no problem at all in letting American soldiers die.
Great article and encouraging news.
Once I read the McChrystal criticized his predecessor and Bush for being” preoccupied with the safety of our forces”
I wanted that POS mcChrystal gone.
i don’t care how it happend and if it was fair or not he needed to go
Next we need the POS 0dumbo to go
You said more about yourself than about Gen McCrystal.
Amen and I'll second that!
As an old Nam Vet (who witnessed and experienced the results of that MORON, LBJ's ROE's including him and his feckless "Wiz Kid" McNamara, actually micromanaging and even picking targets from the oval office) I am appalled that anyone, including McChrystal would put the safety of the troops ahead of ANYTHING else.
Hopefully Petraeus will make the necessary changes and these hearings could put the pressure on him and Dear Leader to let our troops fight without being handcuffed and perhaps some of them who might not have made it, will come home as a result.
When I was flying the M-60 door guns on a Blackhak, the sage advice was to watch out for guys in the back of a white Toyota pick up truck as more than likely they were hiding an RPG under a tarpolin. You still could not fire until they pulled the RPG out and sent it your way. What a hell of a way to fight a war. BS!!!!
Could you please give the source and verifiable link for your quote of Gen McChrystal, thank you very much.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/asia-mainmenu-33/1931-mcchrystal-afghanistan-report-calls-for-more-troops
...
The Post article noted that McChrystal clearly stated that his call for more forces is based on the adoption of a new strategy in which troops would place emphasis on protecting Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory. His report plainly states: “Inadequate resources will likely result in failure. However, without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced.”
As for what he believes is wrong with the present strategy of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) — the official name of the U.S.-led NATO coalition — McChrystal writes: “Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us — physically and psychologically — from the people we seek to protect.... The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves.”
“Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have “operated in a manner that distances us — physically and psychologically — from the people we seek to protect.... The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves.”
He doesn’t seem to be saying protection of the forces should take back seat to anything - the focus had been exclusively the military aspects of the mission - #1 protecting troops...”insurgents cannot defeat us militarily”... there had to be an additional focus - without shortchanging the primary of protecting the troops; that of getting close to the people - as well as the yes, corrupt govt officials, tribesmen, local heroes... he did this well but this was his quagmire - the reality of afghanistan is not the reality of iraq - and simply trying to blow away the “enemy” - every variety - could not win the war...
“...emphasis on protecting Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory.”
An emphasis on protecting Afghans did not mean ceasing to protect American troops - it meant an additional effort - a new focus... he does not state in 2009 the obvious given that the killing and control operations would take a back seat to protecting afghans. Troops would not be jeopardized and the emphasis would shift... This what he considered necessary new direction would not come at the cost of protecting troops - though that it what eventually happened...
My understanding is he was a la James Carville in the gulf -every which way trying - without success - to get the ROEs adjusted changed - some of them removed all together - it was the bureacracy, political military types, the wimps in the white house that let his repeated requests - fall on deaf ears.
He stepped into - accepted -was ordered - into an historical intersect of innovation vs effectiveness - where what worked in the past was no longer viable in today’s realities and geographies... You cannot level an entire country - to keep it safe and many feel that is what it would take to militarily accomplish what was needed over there... so into the mix comes nation building and straighjacket ROEs - tragedy upon needless tragedy.
“Inadequate resources will likely result in failure. However, without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced.”
It was - all of it - untenable, dangerous and the cost in human lives - both sides - unspeakable. He said from the start - without a new strategy - with inadequate resources the mission should not even be started...
There are some figures that McChrsyal asked for upwards of 80,000 troops - and was given less than half of that...that kind of troop level could have done just about anything required for success - buffer the population - outreach - and kill the bad guys... not only did obama dither for 3 months - he didn’t give his general what he supposedly asked for...
I think if McChrystal had his way he would have rather fought a stealth war - by that I mean what it sounds like - protracted infiltration and targeted opportunities - with its own overarching strategy - small precise coordinated.
Politicians - it seems - have never, will never have qualms about sending young men and women to war - and the megabucks military business does not delight in small tight cost effective operations...
There is just a lot of shooting from the hip going on - and I believe Stan McChrystal would die - to keep any one of his soldiers safe from a perceived threat...he was as much a casualty of this war as every dead soldier...
just my thoughts... I don’t like to debate things like this... we are here - safe and warm - they are there...what can we really know.
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.