Posted on 09/16/2009 7:02:22 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
NATO-led forces are investigating the death of four Marines in eastern Afghanistan after their commanders reportedly rejected requests for artillery fire in a battle with insurgents, the Pentagon said on Wednesday. Tuesday's incident was "under investigation" and details remained unclear, press secretary Geoff Morrell told a news conference. A McClatchy newspapers' journalist who witnessed the battle reported that a team of Marine trainers made repeated appeals for air and artillery support after being pinned down by insurgents in the village of Ganjgal in eastern Kunar province. The U.S. troops had to wait more than an hour for attack helicopters to come to their aid and their appeal for artillery fire was rejected, with commanders citing new rules designed to avoid civilian casualties, the report said.
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
I differ only in that I think he will be worse.
Yes, let's see who gets a fast-tracked promotion...
My point is that troops on the ground said that artillery would not endanger civilians and commanders (who weren’t there) ruled otherwise. 4 good Marines died because of that decision.
And now you are reduced to insisting that I made a statement of fact after you said I couldn’t share my opinion unless I was there. Obviously you recognized my statement as opinion first and are now arguing it was presented as fact?
Let me guess, you must be (have been) a commander, right?
That's my point. We simply don't know the details yet. There could be all sorts of primary reasons and contributing factors as to why this incident turned out the way it did. There's alot of knee jerking going on that is baseless until the facts and conclusions are gathered.
Of course, if you think otherwise, you could give us the particulars.
Project much? Your original statement is written as a conclusion of FACT.
Let me guess, you must be (have been) a commander, right?
Yes.
In this case you only have to look up to the top. The ROE, and the article says this, caused this, the ROE comes from Bozo, Bozo is the commander in chief and is responsible for this mess, directly responsible because he is the one who changed the ROE to not shoot back if civilians would be in danger. Quit apologizing for Bozo, you are showing your ignorance, or maybe your liberalism.
Um.....you mean...the Murtha and Zero "new rules" for losing the war and American lives? These aren't new rules. Same bs, same treasonous lefties, different day.
They pulled this crap in Viet Nam. They pulled this crap in Korea. They tried to pull this crap in Iraq. And now, once again, they are MAKING it so the US will LOSE.
God help me, I really hate these people in charge.
Pitchfork time YET?????
Um.....you mean...the Murtha and Zero "new rules" for losing the war and American lives? These aren't new rules. Same bs, same treasonous lefties, different day.
They pulled this crap in Viet Nam. They pulled this crap in Korea. They tried to pull this crap in Iraq. And now, once again, they are MAKING it so the US will LOSE.
God help me, I really hate these people in charge.
Pitchfork time YET?????
Dom you know the particulars? I didn’t think so. Neither do I. Speculation is just that.
I should add that I’m not questioning Gen. McChrystal’s decisions. They may well be right. I don’t know and trusting the press is stupid. My last post was probably misleading, other than to point out that I hope we aren’t listening to someone who is clearly against us.
No projection necessary. You yourself said, "Not your opinion." in post #29 showing that you recognized my post as opinion. Now you claim it was presented as FACT?
"Let me guess, you must be (have been) a commander, right?"
"Yes."
Figured that from the way you talk out of both sides of your mouth. LOL!
1) there was a command decision not to respond, or
2) there was a command decision to repond and the Marines didn't follow the command.
I'm sorry, but it's obvious that the failure rests with the command.
So, again, what factual proof do you have to back up your claim that commanders deliberately withheld fire support that got 4 Marines killed just so they could save their careers? After all, you must have been there to know the facts or have access to them that the rest of us don’t. Speak up. Don’t hold back.
No necessarily. Is there cause to investigate a possible failure in command to provide fire support? Yes. Are there any other number of factors that could have affected the outcome of such a decision? Yes. Do we know ALL the facts? NO.
So again, we see that you’ll talk out of both sides of your mouth to protect your own screw-ups. First you claim I shared my opinion and that wasn’t good enough. Then you claim I presented it as FACT and that’s not good enough!
Aren’t you demonstrating that you are a poster-child for the opinion I just shared?
It’s no wonder the boys on the ground are getting killed.
OK.
And if you provide the facts forthwith that back up your claim, I'll not only concede but publicly damn the commander(s) who made those decisions and demand their courts martial.
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.