Posted on 11/12/2009 4:06:27 AM PST by DeusExMachina05
All packaged up in political correctness...The CIC cannot clearly articulate his intent nor identify the enemy, therefore killing our troops. His intentions are clear and he needs IMPEACHED immediately!
The Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, currently Thorbjørn Jagland, presents the Nobel Peace Prize in the presence of the King of Norway on December 10 each year (the anniversary of Nobel’s death).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize
I suspect that if all the parents of our brave soldiers serving in Afghanistan were aware of the ROE, they would band together NOW and personally remove Obama by force.
He doesn't want to kill fellow muslims.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY&feature=player_embedded
Bambi couldn't have picked a better painting to show the world how he is.
Leadership and Morale. Can an overt stress on casualty limitation cause an army's leaders to become too timid, and the soldiers to lose their "warrior spirit"? The ancient Chinese strategist and commander Wu Zi wrote, "In general, on the battlefield, if soldiers are committed to fight to the death they will live, whereas if they seek to stay alive, they will die. . . . Thus it can be said that the greatest harm that can befall the army's employment [stems from] hesitation, while the disasters that strike . . . are born in doubt."[16] Variations of this theme have been discussed by military theorists of all cultures throughout the history of warfare. Would Leonidas have stayed the course with his band of Spartans at Thermopylae had his army's doctrine been grounded deeply in the art of casualty avoidance? The famous military historian Hans Delbrück described the significance of the Spartan defense as such:
Of itself, the defense of Thermopylae was as good as hopeless. [And] as a matter of form, it could also be said that it was a mistake from the physical-military point of view, but it was of morale significance and of inestimable value in its fulfillment, in that the entrance into Greece proper was not to be handed to the barbarians without a fight.[17]
Acts of valor and audaciousness do play an unquantifiable role in battle that can have profound effects on collective morale, resolve, and aggressiveness. To make too much of a virtue of "living to fight another day" might discourage bold acts. If casualty limitation is simply implied in an order, a subordinate commander may still elect to accept considerable losses if he deems it necessary to fulfill his mission; however, if battle losses are explicitly frowned upon at every level, the men and the mission may become blurred. Furthermore, if the dominant culture becomes one in which each and every casualty is researched in great detail to ascertain causes, and not infrequently to assign blame, the forces may be ill-prepared for the inevitable tough fight lurking over the horizon. Considered coldly, soldiers and an army are ultimately a means, not an end. This truth should not be obscured.
Conclusion
The successful waging of war in both the political and purely military dimensions requires hard, realistic calculations of costs and benefits. Serving the people of a vibrant democratic state, US political leaders have traditionally, and rightfully, placed much significance on the loss of lives suffered in America's battles. Moreover, the United States is a scientifically advanced nation that is best served by developing a doctrine that takes advantage of its technological sophistication and conserves manpower. Obviously, the United States would have little influence in today's chaotic world if it were to quickly exhaust our forces in contests of attrition in far-flung regions of the globe. Fighting smartly, in the sense of using the most modern weapons and innovative doctrine, has been the American military's forte in the 20th century, and it will be even more important to the success of our armed forces given the domestic constraints and international challenges in the coming years.
I have not argued in this article that America should beat its precision-guided weapons into bugles and bayonets. Rather, my purpose is to suggest--modestly and speculatively--that casualty limitation, an issue that must often be addressed explicitly by statesmen, is best left unmentioned by the military in its doctrine, and instead considered seriously, but implicitly, as it plans for war.
Bambi couldn’t have picked a better painting to show the world how he is.
The TOTUS told him to do it...
He is an utter idiot.
It shows why he votes ‘Present’.
He can’t make up his mind...
He’s stalling until the death toll is so large that he’ll just withdraw the troops. Blaming Karzai (and Bush) is his ongoing theme.
The Generals should send over a French Flag and get this over with and spare as many lives as possible.
1. Bleed First, Run Later
2. Run Now
I agree. He has already had the advice of his entire military chain of command with a near unanimous call for for reinforcements to move to the strategy that won in Iraq. We have watched as he has heard from the deep wisdom of Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel. We have seen him dither and quibble and show a completely ineffectual and uncommitted face to our enemies and the rest of the world. Now months after his hand-picked commander has told him the situation is bad and getting worse, our troops in the field fight and die without the support of their Commander in Chief. He sent 21,000 more brave men and women there and now they are flappin’ in the breeze. How can a squad leader look his men in the eyes and tell them to saddle up and head out on a patrol, perhaps to be the last to die for a cause their President no longer believes in?
You can’t set the circumstances for victory before you commit to trying to win one. You can’t set your strategy based on the hope that quality government will just spring up in the midst of chaos with no security. You can’t just magic a functional, fighting Afghan Army out of nothing without competent US forces to first beat the insurgency down to a manageable level. Then they take the Afghans to the field for joint operations to build their confidence just like we did in Iraq. If your goal is simply to turn things over to the Afghans, then hand them the goddamn keys right now. Make a couple of passes over the worst Taliban strongholds, bomb the living shit out of them and then bring our troops home.
Whatever decision you end up making, you have shown a complete lack of leadership ability. You have made the job of our military more difficult everywhere as our enemies have seen you are not the strong horse. This entire process reeks of politics and the hands of your slimy Chicago fixers Emanuel and Axelrod. Why do I think you are looking for someone to hand you a plan that lets you start retreating before your 2012 elections and an appointment with your left wing? Well the rest of us get to vote as well sir, and we are watching your every back sliding step. America doesn’t go to war based on an exit strategy, we go to win. Think about that. Also think about just how wrong you were about Iraq, over and over and over. Go in to win or bring them home now.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/
Still voting Present. This is total crap.
That twit can’t make the tough calls.
He should NEVER have been elected. Idiot Democrats.
We can’t be rid of this Nimrod soon enough. I am imploring my youngest son not to re-up his Army enlistment. If there are any self-respecting generals left, they should all resign in protest of Zero’s outrageous diddling. Jimmy Carter’s legacy is no longer safe; we have a new worst president.
I like to call him SPOTUS.....Sugar Pants of the United States.
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.