Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Petraeus renews limits on airstrikes in Afghanistan
Miami Herald ^ | Wednesday, 08.04.10 | NANCY A. YOUSSEF

Posted on 08/04/2010 6:03:10 PM PDT by Pan_Yan

WASHINGTON -- Afghanistan commander Army Gen. David Petraeus has renewed orders to American troops to refrain from calling in artillery or air power when battling Taliban forces unless they're certain that no civilians are present.

The Aug. 1 order, Petraeus' first since he assumed command early this summer from ousted Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was an effort to fine-tune a McChrystal directive that had angered some U.S. troops, who said the restrictions on the use of artillery and air power exposed them to greater danger. Petraeus' order, unclassified portions of which were released Wednesday, seemed unlikely to mollify that complaint, however.

In his directive, Petraeus sought to strike a balance between protecting the population - the cornerstone of counterinsurgency - and minimizing the risks to U.S. and allied troops.

He wrote that protecting civilians "does not prevent commanders from protecting the lives of their men and women as a matter of self-defense where it is determined no other options are available to effectively counter the threat."

Petraeus, however, used virtually the same language as McChrystal to prohibit the use of artillery and airstrikes unless a commander knows civilians won't be wounded or killed.

(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; airstrikes; petraeus; roe; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
To: Pan_Yan

Obama IS the boss.


41 posted on 08/04/2010 9:03:53 PM PDT by rockinqsranch (Liberalism draws criminals as excrement draws flies. Liberals are only good for bait.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
So you support the decision to sacrifice coalition forces who are bogged down in a firefight for “the greater good” of protecting opium farmers as well as those other civilians who get paid by and coerced into helping the Taliban? I am sure your moral superiority is comforting for FReepers who have family, like myself, risking their lives in Afghan.

COIN is a waste of resources, lives, time, and energy. COIN is simply an intellectual pipe-dream, especially in a tribal environment.

The United States has to literally bribe the civilians not to plant IEDs or other crude explosive devices because no matter how far we bend over backwards to show “kindness”, they hate our western Christian guts. It would be more efficient if brutality reigned, because that is how respect becomes “respected” over there (Just ask the Islamic Taliban). Of course that is not our style so the locals take advantage over the American taxpayer.

42 posted on 08/04/2010 9:32:06 PM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

Yes, and it’s a lose-lose situation.

Use more force - kill more civilians - create more resistance.

Use less force so as not to kill a lot of civilians - increase losses for our own troops - increase the power of the enemy.

We should have bombed the mountainous border regions flat and then left. Once the troops were on the ground, the outcome was predictable. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan were the dumbest military moves since Custer decided to pimp with some Indians.

What is a win now? Keeping the crook Karzai in power? Does anyone really think we can turn this place into a civilized country?


43 posted on 08/04/2010 10:26:55 PM PDT by Pining_4_TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

Shades of Nam. We better get out of there Obama is Johnson all over again. After hearing this one it is time to get outta there.


44 posted on 08/05/2010 12:32:20 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Pan_Yan; SandRat

I agree. There is nothing worse than an administration that is willing to let our soldiers bleed but is not willing to let them win.


45 posted on 08/05/2010 2:30:17 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

Outrageous.

The traitor who ordered this
INFORMED the enemy how to avoid return fire.


46 posted on 08/05/2010 3:00:53 AM PDT by Diogenesis (“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God” - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

A majority of all combat-related U.S. casualties in the nine-year-long war in Afghanistan
have occurred since President Barack Obama was inaugurated 17 months ago

47 posted on 08/05/2010 3:02:44 AM PDT by Diogenesis (“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God” - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

Petraeus is a huge disappontment. Another political general officier who sees hmself as a manager first. The warrior part is a distant 5th or 6th in this man’s priorities.

His first priority is to please the boss—even it puts our solidiers at risk. He’s no better than McChrystal.

This idiot would have been fraged in Vietnam. In WWII he would never would have gotten to full col. let alone general officer. Those military leader’s only priority was to win the war.


48 posted on 08/05/2010 4:32:50 AM PDT by dools007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

In war there are never any good choices. Any decision you make to win the war will inherently result in American soldier deaths. It usually will produce collateral damage as well. Of course the Islamic terrorists up the ante on that by using noncombatants (or pretend noncombatants) as shields.

Islamoterroists have vowed to convert, enslave or kill infidels. Which part of that do you not believe? And there is no doubt they are doing it. Which part of that do you not believe. So, what exactly do we gain by restraining our combat power under the ludicrous belief that if we are nice to these idiots they’ll return the favor.

Oh, and lets not forget that the absolute lack of any meaningful rejection of the jihadis by the larger Muslim population.

So its not a question of finding “good” choices. It’s about employing winning tactics and strategies to win. It really is as simple as that.


49 posted on 08/05/2010 4:43:24 AM PDT by dools007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Thunder90

People like Petraeus and McChrystal are part of the problem. Oh, and if’he’s going to resign why not do it now?


50 posted on 08/05/2010 4:45:32 AM PDT by dools007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

So you think it’s just a mattter of walking away do you? Do you have any idea what will happen if we do?


51 posted on 08/05/2010 4:47:21 AM PDT by dools007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dools007; xzins
So you think it’s just a mattter of walking away do you? Do you have any idea what will happen if we do?

We went in with the intention of crushing the Taliban and removing them from power. We did that quite easily with very few casualties because when we went in, our rules of engagement were clear and did not hamstring our troops. During our attempt at "nation building" we have lost our resolve and the Taliban has taken that loss of will to rebuild and to concentrate their efforts on using terrorist tactics and our own rules of engagement to pick off our troops one by one and to slowly but surely regain power from a ground roots effort which consists of terrorizing the populace and undermining our presence.

Now that the brass has taken the position that they do not wish to actually engage the enemy when they are hiding among the civilian populace that they are terrorizing we are now in a position where not only is victory out of reach, but defeat is assured.

So if we are not willing to fight the war as if it were a war, we have no business being there or pretending to be combating the enemy when we are doing nothing more than giving our enemy the opportunity to make widows and orphans out of the wives and children of our troops.

We can always go back, but only if our resolve is clear and our mission well defined with the object being victory and nothing short of that.

We are currently on a pathway to defeat. Leaving Afghanistan now would be, IMHO, a tactical retreat. We can always go back. But not unless we intend to accept nothing less than a "military victory" a phrase that Obama does not have in his vocabulary

52 posted on 08/05/2010 5:19:42 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
So you support the decision to sacrifice coalition forces who are bogged down in a firefight for “the greater good” of protecting opium farmers as well as those other civilians who get paid by and coerced into helping the Taliban? I am sure your moral superiority is comforting for FReepers who have family, like myself, risking their lives in Afghan.

Where on earth did you come up with that? Not only did you read far more into my post than was actually there, but you also invented an entire viewpoint and projected it onto me. It would also appear that you either didn't read or didn't understand the conversations on this thread before you kicked in the door and started indiscriminately shooting.

53 posted on 08/05/2010 6:41:55 AM PDT by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

As much as I hate it (because my son is a career soldier who is about to be deployed a fifth time) I would rather we stay there until we get Onada out of the WH. It will be much harder and costly (casualty wise) to retake ground we had been controlling. Leaving only gives the IslamoTerrorists free rein to subjugate the population and dig in.

We’re all frustrated, but we must not let that drive us to making bad decisions that will make the future more difficult. We are where we are today precisely because politicians made expedient, but not correct choices.


54 posted on 08/05/2010 7:14:11 AM PDT by dools007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: surfer

“We should level the place, do it quickly and be done with it and send a very clear message to the world - you enable people to hurt our interests and people and you will be dead - PERIOD.”

How about the Saudis? They provided most of the money and most of the lunatics who carried out the 9/11 attacks. Should we bloody them a bit as well?


55 posted on 08/05/2010 7:31:49 AM PDT by freethinker_for_freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
Petraeus, however, used virtually the same language as McChrystal to prohibit the use of artillery and airstrikes unless a commander knows civilians won't be wounded or killed.

The Taliban are civilians.

So we can not shoot or kill the Taliban.

Such insanity !


56 posted on 08/05/2010 7:32:27 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freethinker_for_freedom
How about the Saudis? They provided most of the money and most of the lunatics who carried out the 9/11 attacks. Should we bloody them a bit as well?

Works for me.

57 posted on 08/05/2010 7:33:17 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Conservative9

Good point.


58 posted on 08/05/2010 7:37:35 AM PDT by freethinker_for_freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Pining_4_TX

“We should have bombed the mountainous border regions flat and then left. Once the troops were on the ground, the outcome was predictable. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan were the dumbest military moves since Custer decided to pimp with some Indians.

What is a win now? Keeping the crook Karzai in power? Does anyone really think we can turn this place into a civilized country?”

Talk about hitting the nail on the head. Well said!


59 posted on 08/05/2010 7:43:21 AM PDT by freethinker_for_freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

I for one am for killing millions, hell tens of millions of moslems. They killed US on 9/11, we have to create a mathematical equation that will convince them that attack US is the worse thing they could possibly do.

They kill 3000, we kill 30 million. 10,000 to 1. At that rate they lose. You see.

Because let me tell you that when the moslems get the capability to put US on the losing end of this equation they will, and then the question will be.....

would THE MULLAHS advise THEY pull all of THEIR terrorists out and indiscriminately kill a few million AMERICANS from afar? ... AND THE ANSWER WILL BE ALLAH AKBAR!!!


60 posted on 08/05/2010 11:18:25 PM PDT by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson