Petraeus renews limits on airstrikes in Afghanistan

Miami Herald ^ | Wednesday, 08.04.10 | NANCY A. YOUSSEF

[TomasUSMC]

You can call for it but the only arty your gonna get is from the enemy mortars and RPGs.

All the enemy has to do is stand kids in front of them and shoot.

And now we have to have Afgans with US on every patrol? Talk about telegraphing your punch.

This is going to result in many more civilian casualties

[TomasUSMC]

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

THIS IS NOT CORRECT. If it were true the Taliban would have won long ago, since they kill more civilians than anyone.

[dforest]

Obama has done a fine job of ruining the careers of Generals.

One more on the way down.

[Pan_Yan]

Obama has done a fine job of ruining the careers of Generals.

It's amazing how quickly FReepers either turn on and trash or fight to the death to defend military officers whom they've only read one or two articles about.

[dforest]

I have no faith in a good outcome when dems/progressives are running a war.

I was thinking when Obama named Petraeus that his career would not end well. I even wondered if he was named to purposely ruin him.

This is an emotional thing in my family.

One thing I do know is that we need to win or get out. All I care about is more families of soldiers dying to keep Obama from looking bad.

Karzai is already schmoozing up to Iran. But then, he knows when we are leaving.

[Pan_Yan]

One thing I do know is that we need to win or get out.

As I've told several people on this thread there are no good choices. I want us to win. I don't see a path to victory, especially with this administration in charge. But leaving has it's own risks and I don't want to see the next generation pay in blood for this generations mistakes.

No good choices.

[dforest]

I have no problem leaving there. The same enemies can come through our southern border. They even have conclaves around the US.

Lets not forget they are going to establish their trophy mosque at the heart of Ground Zero.

Supposedly we went there to keep Al Qaeda from establishing training camps and to get Bin Laden.

The tragedy of Vietnam was 58000 deaths of brave troops for nothing.

Leftists cannot be allowed to run a war.

Who knows? Nothing surprises me anymore. We will probably find Osama Bin Laden living in New Jersey.

[rollo tomasi]

You posted the article because why? Plus rush to defend so called "civilians".

You then weasel with "I don't think anyone has a good answer as to what to do in Afghanistan." then when someone talks about the "leveling of civilians" you go back to the article's topic of somehow the civivs who support the Taliban by the way, are "sacred".

Well they are not, in fact they are the enemy when they give false intel, plant IEDs, help load weapons when "their" men/fathers are in a fire fight, play dumb when they get caught with munitions (And most get released), and many other types of behavior that says, "where is the innocence of a good hearted civilian in Afghanistan." "I don't think anyone has a good answer as to what to do in Afghanistan." has an easy answer, by doing the opposite of COIN and using our might as an advantage. Either impose our own will and not cater to the opium trade, pro-Islam ideology or get out, there is your "good answer."

The US does not need to carpet bomb cities, just "perform" enough to the draw the lines and make "our stay" as uncomfortable to the "civilians" as possible. The civis are using the US as a cash cow and then going rogue. COIN is useless because the population is comprised of deceiving "welfare cases" that trickle supplies/info to the enemy. Great strategy...

[rollo tomasi]

By the way, do you think the idea of bringing along women and children to "sneak" attacks by the Taliban is great strategy on their part? There are other strategic and tactical maneuvers the Taliban use to implement civilians (Who are doing Allah's work) into the fighting. Are these wartime maneuvers by the Taliban "smart" considering the US ROEs? How should the US respond to that strategy? Rubber bullets, loud heavy metal music, rocks, etc...?

Let me just "speculate" a bit that the US had Bin Laden, say at least three times, in the position of easily taking him out. Let me just "speculate" some more that the operation might have caused some collateral damage which, again let me "speculate", is one reason why the orders were rescinded.

The civilians, who cling to Bin Laden, are why moral sucks and the Taliban keep going, ("Speculating"). Good for you and the active duty/civilian top brass, to think of Bin Laden "groupies". Remember, "speculating" all of this by the way.

[Pan_Yan]

I posted this article because it’s news. I have responded to people who posted to me and I have tried to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion with some of them. You, on the other hand, seem to have a great desire to vilify me with false opinions that I do not have and then use me as a scapegoat for your rants. No thank you.

[rollo tomasi]

You post an article on neutered ROEs and rush to defend so called civilians known to help the enemy when somebody says "carpet bomb". Not easy to go after the Taliban when in fact, the Taliban is “embedded” among the populous, men, women, and child, that are aided by a violent ideology.

When it comes to dealing with supposed “civis”, defense seems to become a priority with you, not "reasonable" solutions/ an "intelligent discussion" that fails to constitute what a civilian in Afghanistan is. Also, you avoid questions which would gage your opinion on why we should succumb to the Taliban tactics of using civis as protection. Does a woman/child planting IEDs a civilian? Does a women/child rearming an adult engaged in battle a civilian? Does a child shooting at coalition forces a civilian? Does a population that uses other country's resources and help the enemy civilians? Soldiers as well as Commanders who can order air strikes, have many things on their minds, JAGs should be the last. You protect the soldiers and resources at all cost. Just war is a clouded concept in Afghanistan. The enemy and civilian populations have CHOSEN to ignore basic human logic of protecting their loved ones, by incorporating their innocence into tactical and strategic maneuvers.

You sound like a pacifist, hypocritically praying for our loved ones, ushering feint support, while supporting a position (Again, defending "civilians") which makes their jobs even more hellish due to the fact they are fighting a war while walking on eggshells. Can you engage in battle knowing you will cause a great amount of collateral damage? If it ensures a quick victory, takes out and important target, are the actions correct?

Guess what, the Taliban have been "conditioning" the populous just like the Viet Cong did for a long time. Crippling the economy, threatening harm, destroying poppy fields, and striking fear into the population based on our existence. What is you solution? COIN them with kindness? Protecting their opium fields? Paying them double then what the Taliban are paying? There was a tremendous effort in the Open Arms Program in Vietnam to turn members of the Viet Cong and the civilians to "our side". Somewhat effective but...

[rollo tomasi]

country's=countries'

[rollo tomasi]

Only “solution” in facing a $12 trillion debt, $1 trillion+ dollar deficit, future obligations, a weak economy, Obama, and lack of sustained progress is a massive exodus.

The more soldiers, the harder establishing logistics based on terrain.

The population has strong ideological and religious inclinations that seem impossible to break. They do not seek Western stability. We are on their home turf trying to force a square peg into a small circle.

Our civilian commanders seem disinterested and think conjuring up Barbara Eden from a bottle to wish tranquility is all it takes. One cannot fight a pure war or fight with their hands behind their backs (Stringent ROEs)

Carpet bombing and air superiority helps in some ways but are not completely effective against guerrilla warfare. Also, occupying cities become a disadvantage in this type of war environment/ideological war because you need to concentrate of turning people who hate us into supporting us. Top of that, they have no problems helping our enemy which makes the job that much tougher. Heck, the Taliban have a whole network woven into the “civilian” population that consist of different tribes, meaning the Taliban is evolving. The enemy is not divided, in fact they (”Civilians”) are strongly united by ideology, galvanized by a war with the West.

Are we there to mainly kill the Taliban or wasting lives while spending billions to protect their population? That is McChrystal/Obama "tactic"/ meaning of why we are there, to focus on protecting the civilian population (Not war) and it seems to be Petraeus/Obama "tactic" as well. Pakistan and a willing populous protect the Taliban, hmmm...