Rules of engagement limit the actions of U.S. troops and drones in Afghanistan

Washington Times ^ | 11/27/13 | Rowan Scarborough

[Nachum]

The new U.S.-Afghanistan security agreement adds restrictions on already bureaucratic rules of engagement for American troops by making Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy, combat veterans say. The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire — even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed. The proposed Bilateral Security Agreement announced Wednesday by Afghan

[Nachum]

Obama rules of engagement = Dead or injured GI's

[Nachum]

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/

[dalereed]

Get all our troupes out and nuke the place into oblivion!

[onyx]

God Rest The Souls of Our Fallen.

PLEASE Support FR Today/Tonight.
LESS than $2.8k to GO!

[Windflier]

Bring ‘em home. Now. We don’t even have an identifiable, credible objective there anymore.

[MasterGunner01]

Why are U.S. troops STILL in Afghanistan? Karzai has been playing footsie with the Taliban. Pull our people and equipment out [or destroy it in place] and let the Afghan savages kill each other. That's what these tribal societies do best.

[sauropod]

Bring the troops home.

Those fleabags over there aren’t worth it.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.

Can we just send Barry Sorrento, Valerie and their "media-boy-toy" to some "hot" zone" ...


and leave them cut-off and isolated ...


like the four Americans murdered (by Obama) in Benghazi ?



.