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

Skip to comments.

Petraeus' Rules of Engagement: Tougher Than McChrystal's
Time ^ | 08/06/2010 | Jason Motlagh

Posted on 08/06/2010 11:24:55 AM PDT by Sprite518

The servicemen say that the strict rules put them in greater danger, even as they aim to avoid civilian casualties.

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


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; mcchrystal; petraeus; roe; war
I guess our country wants to lose another war. Obviously we have not learned jack $hit from Vietnam.
1 posted on 08/06/2010 11:24:58 AM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sprite518

Yup. This is why I don’t advise joining the military right now.

Even the Generals are pussyfooting around.


2 posted on 08/06/2010 11:30:06 AM PDT by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518
Some more quotes from the article,

“Under General McChrystal, NATO forces were prohibited from calling in air strikes or artillery fire on village compounds where the enemy might have been mixed in with civilians. Going several steps better, General Petraeus has reportedly expanded the ban on air strikes and artillery fire to all types of buildings, tree-lined areas and hillsides where it is difficult to distinguish who is on the ground.”

Writes Petraeus: “Every Afghan civilian death diminishes our cause.”

In other words let them shoot at you and do not dare to fire back. What a jack a$$! I'm sorry but this guy has me fired up. I guess our guys are just cannon fodder?

If this is the way it's going to be, then I will highly discourage anyone thinking of joining the service. Yeah change we can believe in!

3 posted on 08/06/2010 11:32:18 AM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

I think that is a smart move unless you have a death wish.

And they wonder why we have had the highest amount of deaths in a single month. I’m sorry but this general has blood on his hands. What a jerk!


4 posted on 08/06/2010 11:34:03 AM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

I think that is a smart move unless you have a death wish.

And they wonder why we have had the highest amount of deaths in a single month. I’m sorry but this general has blood on his hands. What a jerk!


5 posted on 08/06/2010 11:34:12 AM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound
Yup. This is why I don’t advise joining the military right now.

Unfortunately, I have to agree. Are there lots of people out there who think many of these Generals are nothing but a bunch of yes men?

6 posted on 08/06/2010 11:34:15 AM PDT by Mark17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518

What? Troops are still dying on the ground in Afghanistan? Wow, wonder why the SRM isn’t reporting on that anymore. /BEYOND MAD


7 posted on 08/06/2010 11:36:30 AM PDT by piytar (Those who never learned that peace and freedom are rare will be taught by reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518

Petraeus won the iraq war in a similar manner.


8 posted on 08/06/2010 11:40:48 AM PDT by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mark17

The new trend seems to be that the Generals are mostly interested in keeping their jobs, so they adhere to the whims of the politicians.

As we have seen, that is no way to win a war.


9 posted on 08/06/2010 11:44:49 AM PDT by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518

We apparently have lost the war fighting lessons from WWII where you destroyed everything in front of you. The current tactics did not work in Nam and won’t work here.


10 posted on 08/06/2010 11:48:31 AM PDT by NY Attitude (Make love not war but be prepared for either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518
“Every Afghan civilian death diminishes our cause”

What does that even mean??
Did the millions of German civilian dead “diminish our cause?”
Did the millions upon million of civilian dean in Japan “diminish our cause?”

Sorry, 100% WRONG.

"It is a general rule of human nature that people despise those who treat them well, and look up to those who make no concessions." - Thucydides

11 posted on 08/06/2010 11:50:51 AM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518

I think we should bring our boys home and hire the Israeli army to take care it.


12 posted on 08/06/2010 12:12:08 PM PDT by chainsaw ( 'You know that your landing gear is up and locked when it takes full power to taxi to the terminal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mark17

many of these Generals are nothing but a bunch of yes men?

Many of these Generals didn’t get to be generals unless they kissed the politicians a$$. The surge was nothing more than just putting more grunts on the ground in Iraq, but the media called it brilliant, and people ate it like cake and ice crean.


13 posted on 08/06/2010 12:19:42 PM PDT by chainsaw ( 'You know that your landing gear is up and locked when it takes full power to taxi to the terminal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518

WTF.

Is this Time creating disinformation, or the usual LameStream Media failure to understand the real world?

Or is Petraeus really doing as this rag suggests?


14 posted on 08/06/2010 12:21:05 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

Agree 100% Like the quote too.


15 posted on 08/06/2010 12:22:52 PM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

I wish it was B.S. It’s the truth! Even a broken clock, such as time, is right twice a day.


16 posted on 08/06/2010 12:30:30 PM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush

No he did not. Yes there were rules of engagement, but not this strict. Sorry we are going to lose there, and the blood with be in the hands of these gutless political Generals. Sorry but I don’t like seeing our troops being used as pawns by gutless people.


17 posted on 08/06/2010 12:33:58 PM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush

Lets hope he has a few tricks up his sleeve to win this one. If he does—he’s got my vote if he runs for President. Palin/Petraeus—has a nice ring to it.


18 posted on 08/06/2010 12:55:15 PM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518
This story is just not true. I have seen the new ROE's and they have several important improvements to counter-fire.

Before, unless you were taking fire from a compound or any structure, now matter how dilapidated, you couldn't degrade it even if the enemy had clearly retreated inside. Before, the enemy could hide in any walls-only, unoccupied, falling down structure. If they didn't fire, they were off limits to arty or air.

Now, if the enemy goes into any structure without a roof or any structure with a roof and only 3 walls we can degrade it whether we are fired on from that location or not.

This is a huge improvement and we no longer have to use ground assault on dilapidated structures.

19 posted on 08/06/2010 1:11:51 PM PDT by gandalftb (OK State: Go Cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NY Attitude
We apparently have lost the war fighting lessons from WWII where you destroyed everything in front of you.

We're not fighting WWII. This is an entirely different situation.

The current tactics did not work in Nam and won’t work here.

We didn't use these tactics in Vietnam. We killed two million Vietnamese and still lost. The Russians did something similar to that in Afghanistan and lost.

Maybe the top generals learned something from Vietnam and know more about counterinsurgency warfare than anyone on this thread.

20 posted on 08/06/2010 1:37:07 PM PDT by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518

*bump*


21 posted on 08/06/2010 3:18:52 PM PDT by Kimberly GG ("Path to Citizenship" Amnesty candidates will NOT get my vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideminded

We lost Vietnam by restricting what our troops can do. We are doing the same STUPID tactic in Afghanistan!


22 posted on 08/06/2010 4:45:39 PM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

Prove it is not true. Links please?

First, what do you think the enemy is going to do once they read our rules of engagement. Oh well besides laugh at our dumba$$ rules? Hint: They will not abide by it?

Here look at this link. It will get your blood boiling about the Rules of Engagement. BTW, I heard the military now gives awards for not killing anyone in Afghanistan. Wonderful! (sarcam off)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGi427clgyk


23 posted on 08/06/2010 4:57:20 PM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518
We lost Vietnam by restricting what our troops can do.

No we didn't, but it made it a lot longer to get in a position where the North decided they couldn't win and we finally had a brokered peace and pulled out.

Then, after Nixon resigned, the Democrat Congress pulled the military aid rug out from under the South Vietnamese and the North invaded. The South couldn't fight without bullets nor the air power we previously promised in case the North invaded again. They got neither because of the jubilantly delighted Democrat Congress (they finally succeeded in getting the War lost).

The Vietnamese War was lost as a direct result of actions of the Democrat controlled Congress - not restrictions on our troops before we pulled out. It didn't have to end that way and likely wouldn't have if Nixon had been able to stay in office.

Things haven't changed a whit for the better in 40 years. They have just gotten worse. The problem is the treasonous dirtbags who coinhabit this country with the rest of us and now happen to have a vice lock on power.

I'm not trying to hijack the thread, just setting the record straight. Today our "history" books ignore silly things like the truth if it makes the treasonous Liberals (but, I repeat myself) look bad.

*Carry on*

24 posted on 08/06/2010 5:23:05 PM PDT by Gritty (Behind those "IMAGINE PEACE" stickers lies a terrible failure to imagine - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518
Right and wrong.

The Viet Nam war was fought and lost in the halls of Congress.

You are correct that we will use the "same STUPID tactic in Afghanistan".

25 posted on 08/07/2010 9:29:19 AM PDT by gandalftb (OK State: Go Cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518
The new ROE is hardly something I can publish first in FR for your satisfaction.

Take a look at this link, it contradicts the Time article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0805/Afghanistan-war-Will-the-new-Petraeus-rules-of-engagement-make-troops-safer

Here's another link that backs up my point:

http://www.marine-corps-news.com/2010/08/petraeus_reloads_rules_of_enga.htm

One other improvement to the ROE is that sub-commanders cannot make the ROE more restrictive, nothing can be added to it locally without agreement from HQ.

Anything more detailed other than what I've offered is classified, but the ROE's will start tricking out over the next few weeks when the embeds get a hold of them.

26 posted on 08/07/2010 9:39:35 AM PDT by gandalftb (OK State: Go Cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518

A Point of Order for FR comments: You will get a much better response if you offer facts in support of your point, rather that saying “prove it is not true”.


27 posted on 08/07/2010 9:43:53 AM PDT by gandalftb (OK State: Go Cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

Well then Mr. Sgt At Arms did you not say,

“This story is just not true. I have seen the new ROE’s and they have several important improvements to counter-fire.”

You said that with nothing to back it up? Just sayin..


28 posted on 08/07/2010 11:16:17 AM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

I just read both articles and they are not as detailed as the Time article. They really do not add anything to this debate. Sorry but not impressed with your sources.


29 posted on 08/07/2010 11:24:53 AM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518
But you're impressed with Time magazine as a source?

A better source than USA Today, The Christian Science Monitor and marine-corps-news.com?

They "do not add anything to this debate" Hmmm. Here are some cuts from those sources:

"The updated rules do not substantially change how and when firepower can be used, said Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a military spokesman in Afghanistan."

"The rules do not prevent commanders from using firepower, such as artillery or airstrikes, in self-defense"

"The rules appear to relax restrictions on the use of deadly force"

Here's a source for ya, Petraeus himself, ROE Tactical Directive 2010-08-CA-004:

http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/isaf-commander-issues-updated-tactical-directive.html

If this is going to be a debate, you have to post sources too, otherwise I'm just chasing your broad, generalized dismissals.

30 posted on 08/07/2010 1:09:57 PM PDT by gandalftb (OK State: Go Cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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