Family of Fallen Soldier Petitions Top General for War Policy Changes (Petraeus Responds ASAP)

The father of a slain local soldier has taken public a message about the war's rules of engagement.

William Osborn, the father of Spc. Benjamin Osborn, who was killed in action in Afghanistan on June 15, sent a letter to Gen. David Petraeus on Sunday asking him to change rules which he said tie soldiers' hands.

"Our son, SPC 4 Benjamin D. Osborn, volunteered to man the one heavy gun his unit had mounted on top of an MRAP vehicle," the e-mail states. "Finally, ordered to fire, Ben was able to get off 10 rounds before falling silent."

Four minutes after Osborn sent the e-mail, Petraeus responded with condolences for the parents and asked them to listen to remarks he'll make at a Senate confirmation hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, where he planned to address the issue.

On Monday morning, William Osborn appeared on the Fox News cable channel to deliver the same message and said troops need to be empowered to use force when they deem it necessary.

The current rules of engagement call for firing only after being fired upon, Osborn said, and that rule is what led to the death of his son.

Cyndie Wade, a friend of the Osborn family who said a contact she knows helped Osborn get on the national cable network, sent an e-mail to NBC on Monday and said she is working to get the parents to appear on MSNBC and the Today Show.

"For whatever reason, my feelings seem to have caught on with some people," Osborn said. "It's too late for my son, but if this could help the men and women out there now, this is Ben's legacy. It's about Ben and the men that he fought with over there. They just deserve a lot better than what they're getting."

Our son, SPC 4 Benjamin D. Osborn was killed in action June 15, 2010 in Kunar Province Afghanistan, on a mission. On that day, his unit of 20 was ambushed, coming under heavy fire from a Taliban force of between 70 to 100 strong. Due to the "Rules of Engagement," our soldiers could not return fire to protect themselves until ordered to do so.

Our son, SPC 4 Benjamin D. Osborn volunteered to man the one heavy gun his unit had mounted on top of an MRAP vehicle. Finally, ordered to fire, Ben was able to get off 10 rounds before falling silent.

This illustrates to us that there is a very basic flaw in our "Rules of Engagement." We believe that it led to the demise of our son, SPC 4 Benjamin D. Osborn and other warriors like him. We have the greatest fighting force in the world with the most technologically advanced weapons known to man. We spend enormous resources to teach, train and prepare our fighting men and women for battle; then send them out with one hand tied behind their backs.

It appears that our current administration is anti-military because of the limits placed on field personnel. The "Rules of Engagement" are such that we allow our enemies one break after another: we can not fire unless fired upon, if enemy combatants are around civilians we must retreat, before we can enter buildings we must consult with Afghan National Security Forces. Such "Rules of Engagement" allow these terrorists to escape to come back stronger and fight another day.

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Osborn, please accept my condolences on the loss of your son.

And please listen to my opening statement at the confirmation hearing on Tuesday morning at 0930. I will address the ROE issue. I will note that commanders have a moral imperative to ensure that we provide every possible element of support to our troopers when they get into a tight spot. And I will ensure that we meet that imperative if I am confirmed to command ISAF in Afghanistan.

Previously...

NOTE The following text is a quote:

http://www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=59656

fghanistan Timeline Not a Withdrawal Date, Officials Say

By Army Sgt. 1st Class Michael J. Carden
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 16, 2010 – President Barack Obama’s directive calling for the start of a conditions-based drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in July 2011 shouldn’t be considered as an exit date, but rather the beginning of the transfer of security responsibilities to the Afghans, the top U.S. military commander in the region told a Senate panel today.Video

U.S. Central Command commander Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The hearing was a continuation from yesterday’s meeting, which was postponed after Petraeus had fainted due to dehydration.

The officials picked up where they had left off, explaining the essence of Obama’s Afghanistan strategy and the significance of setting a timeline. They also provided an update on Afghanistan operations.

“As I noted yesterday, I did believe there was value in sending a message of urgency — July 2011 — as well as the message the president was sending of commitment — the additional, substantial numbers of forces,” Petraeus said. “But it is important that July 2011 be seen for what it is: the date when a process begins, based on conditions, not the date when the U.S. heads for the exits.”
Petraeus added that his agreement with Obama’s policy was based on projections of conditions in July 2011.

“We’re doing all that is humanly possible to achieve those conditions,” he said.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and his experts and leaders in the region will conduct “rigorous assessments” throughout the year to determine progress and, if necessary, make adjustments in the strategy as July 2011 approaches, Petraeus said.

“I will provide my best military advice to the secretary and to the president on how I believe we should proceed based on the conditions at that time, and I will then support the president’s decision,” the general said. “Providing one’s forthright advice is a sacred obligation military leaders have to our men and women in uniform, and I know that that is what the president expects and wants his military leaders to provide.”

Although pleased with Petraeus’ explanation of the meaning of the July 2011 timeline, some on the committee voiced concerns.

Petraeus attempted to assuage the legislators’ concerns, pointing out that some “journalistic accounts” have misconstrued the president’s strategy. The July 2011 timeline is subject to conditions on the ground at that time, he explained.

“What I have tried to explain today is my understanding of what July 2011 means and how it is important, again, that people do realize, especially our partners, especially our comrades-in-arms in Afghanistan and in the region, that that is not the date when we look for the door and try to turn off the light, but rather a date at which a process begins,” he said.

July 2011 “is an inflection point,” Flournoy said. “It is a point at which the end of the surge will be marked and a process of transition that is conditions-based will begin.”

Setting a goal to begin the transition U.S. military forces out of Afghanistan shouldn’t be considered as detrimental to the U.S. government’s long-term commitment there, Flournoy continued, noting a recent strategic dialogue held with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and his cabinet, in which U.S. officials discussed “long-term security assistance, long-term commitments to build capacity, governance [and] development.”

And, the participants at that meeting departed with “no questions in their mind about the depth and enduring nature of the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan,” Flournoy said. “I think that has to be [an] important context in which this conversation happens.”

In his opening remarks at today’s meeting with the Senate panel, Petraeus noted initiatives, such as the formation of the NATO Training Mission Afghanistan command, that are pursuing greater partnership with Afghan forces. Such initiatives, he said, are intended to help Afghan forces achieve the capability to assume the leading role in operations.

“To that end, I think we should note that Afghan forces are in the lead in Kabul and in a number of other areas and missions,” Petraeus explained. “And they are very much in the fight throughout the country, so much so that their losses are typically several times U.S. losses. Our Afghan comrades on the ground are indeed sacrificing enormously for their country as are, of course, our troopers and those of our [international] partner nations.”

Biographies:
Michele Flournoy
Army Gen. David H. Petraeus

Related Articles:
Defense Officials Cite Progress, Challenges in Afghanistan

My guess is that you are right and he has been co-oped. There is also the chance that he operates on principle and could care less about career. That would be a difficult situation for Obama and unusual for someone with four stars. He could have said he would run the war the right way or resign. I would, but then maybe that is the reason my highest professional achievement was v.p. finance at a small Christian college.

In regard to why bother, accomplishing Afghan stability means thwarting efforts to turn a nuclear Pakistan into a feral state, by eliminating the safe haven al Qaida and the Taliban would use to destroy the government. Such a country would then fuel with nuclear devices the ambitions of Islamic regimes determined to wage a War of Terror regionally and internationally.

Afghan stability also encourages the actions of African, Oriental and Asian Islamic countries, which bring victory in the Global War on Terror. The U.S. and other Western countries must prove themselves to be dependable allies against jihadist factions determined to rule by violent means. In such an environment, we are able to ally with a host of countries in a host of actions short of war.

African/Oriental/Asian actions then frustrate plans, break alliances, and fracture Islamic jihadist organizations into ever less effective units. Without cities, countries or armies bin Laden, and successor sociopath prophets live out unnaturally shortened lives as pariahs.

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.