Posted on 11/11/2009 6:52:34 PM PST by clove
Agreed, smooth. They were just words.
You’re making an assumption that this strategy is actually being “laid down by the experts in the field” and not by some other entity or person within the administration reminiscent of a Vietnam. There may even be pressure on the “experts in the field” to adhere to a certain set of protocols.
It is my understanding that the new ROE prohibit our soldiers from returning certain enemy sniper fire. That’s a problem in an urban guerrilla war environment.
My grandfather was a policeman during the riots in Milwaukee during the summer of 1967. I remember him telling this same story to us for years afterward. He was 64 and a year from retirement and he said he was laying in a wet gutter as bullets whizzed past his head with orders not to shoot back. It seems the policy is an old one.
BTW, wasn't the meme that President Obama *wasn't* talking to General McChrystal and was neglecting Afghanistan? Has that officially changed now so the new ROE can be pinned on him?
If you want to lay the authorship of every decision you don't like at the feet of people you don't like, just because it makes your worldview make more sense, well all I can say is I hope you have fun with that.
Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather base my opinions on facts than create falsehoods to support my opinions, even if that means having to change my opinions at the end of the day.
LOL. “Old fashioned” is the not the term I’d use...
Not to point out the obvious, but it seems necessary at least in this case - President Bush and his ADMINISTRATION were held accountable/responsible for everything that happened under their watch. The same thing is happening now to a much LESSER extent with Obama and his ADMINISTRATION. I think most people see this phenomenon and find it curious if not downright disturbing. There is clearly a double standard at work in the media and elsewhere. It has nothing to do with personality, it has to do with responsibility and accountability.
Petraeus and McChrystal also asked for additional troops back in March after the White House asked for their evaluations/strategies, etc. That hasn’t happened. So it’s obvious that there is serious cherry picking of “the work and statements” of General Petraeus and McChrystal.
BTW, contrary to your claims, all I read in your posts were manipulative attacks - not facts.
He never did say how he knew bin jellin was in Pakistan, come to think of it.
“You’re making an assumption that this strategy is actually being “laid down by the experts in the field” and not by some other entity or person within the administration reminiscent of a Vietnam.”
And with people like Rosa Brooks working in the Pentagon and influencing policy for Obama who needs enemies!? Keep in mind this is only ONE radical of most likely many who are now influencing the policy on Afghanistan. Terrifying for our troops and their safety.
“Pentagon official blames U.S. for al-Qaida attacks”
April 20, 2009
Pentagon official blames U.S. for al-Qaida attacks Worked for George Soros, argued for government control of media.
She believes al-Qaida was an “obscure group” turned into a massive threat due to U.S. policies.
She’s referred to former President Bush as “our torturer in chief” and a “psychotic who need(s) treatment” while comparing Bush’s arguments for waging a war on terrorism to Adolf Hitler’s use of political propaganda.
She’s worked on behalf of George Soros’ philanthropic foundation.
Meet Rosa Brooks, the Obama administration’s new adviser to Michelle Fluornoy, the undersecretary of defense for policy, a position described as one of the most influential in the Pentagon.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2234175/posts
________________________________________________________
“Rosa Brooks: the Pentagon’s far left adviser”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2230565/posts
“Obama’s Latest Radical at the Defense Department”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2249118/posts
“Rosa Brooks: A Disaster at Defense”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2236615/posts
“Putting her in the policy shop is like Lyndon Johnson making Jane Fonda a senior adviser on Vietnam...”
_______________________________________________________
FTA:
“Brooks’ new boss Fluornoy holds one of the most powerful posts in the Pentagon, and is already playing a key role in shaping the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan as well as the wider war against al-Qaeda. She will also be a central figure in shaping U.S.-UK defence cooperation and Washington’s policy towards NATO. As an adviser to Fluornoy, Brooks will wield an extraordinary degree of influence in helping shape U.S. policy. Her extreme views should therefore be closely scrutinized”
(snip)“... She further argued that “with so many thousands dead, and so many thousands more embittered, ‘winning’ isn’t really on the table anymore....”
(O.K. Rosa...we’re listening...)
“...The only question now is whether we can mitigate the damage.”~Rosa Brooks
So this is her thought process? “The only question now is whether we can ‘mitigate’ the damage”?
Hmmmm...Wonder how she is currently putting that into action at the Pentagon.
“”mitigate” to make or become less severe, intense or painful.” (Random House Webster’s Dictionary)
Rosa Brooks is described as “...someone who appears to have no relevant national security qualifications for the position.”
You can see based on this example the direction Afghanistan could take if people like Brooks are involved in decisions on policy. You can only imagine what her input and ideas might be based on her ultra radical views. How many more like her are working in the shadows directing policy on this war.
It would be interesting to know exactly who wrote the new ROE’s and who contributed in the process of writing them up. Of course the buck stops at McChrystal’s desk and Obama over him.
Bookmarked to catch up after dinner. Got a few pings to this thread today!
Or the entire squad and chain of command. Think Haditha
Bump for later read.
She’s referred to former President Bush as “our torturer in chief” and a “psychotic who need(s) treatment” while comparing Bush’s arguments for waging a war on terrorism to Adolf Hitler’s use of political propaganda...
Meet Rosa Brooks, the Obama administration’s new adviser to Michelle Fluornoy, the undersecretary of defense for policy, a position described as one of the most influential in the Pentagon.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2234175/posts
ping See reply #208
“Or the entire squad and chain of command. Think Haditha.”
More political bs brought to us by Murtha dictated now by the Islamist sympathizer in Chief. The Haman case will be a walk in the park compared to how he could skewer our troops overseas. Our troops are in harm's way for sure.
LOL!!!
Yikes! Thanks for the nightmares...;)
The man responsible for the 9-11 attack is still alive and free. That's on the Bush administration, and it's an unacceptable failure on their part.
We ignored and circumvented our own laws and utilized torture. That's on the Bush administration, and it's an unacceptable failure on their part, and it makes a mockery of your statement regarding responsibility and accountability.
Further, your timeline of events, regarding the request of additional troops, seems to omit anything not directly related to the surge presently under discussion - there were 38,000 troops in Afghanistan in March, and there are 68,000 now. That's an equivalent increase to the Iraq troop surge of 2007. Also, General McChrystal didn't assume the duties of OIC in Afghanistan until mid-June.
The increase presently under consideration was submitted in October, and the President looks to be issuing a decision shortly. Contrasted to the month it took the Bush administration to act on the Iraq surge request, it's not as expeditious, but it's neither the result of willful delay nor procrastination as far as I can see. If you have a different opinion based upon the facts, that's fine. If your opinion is based upon ignorance or falsehoods, that's something else entirely.
Lastly, if you consider being acquainted with the facts of the matter to be a manipulative attack, whether due to thin skin or an inability to discern the facts presented therein, that's more your problem than mine.
If it were up to the civilian members of the government in Japan, they would have surrendered after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But it wasn't up to the civilian members of the government, it was up to the military members of the government, and they didn't throw in the towel until the Soviets invaded Manchuria and ended any hopes of Soviet mediation. Even then, a military coup had to be defused before Japan could surrender.
So the strategy is to make our troops expendable?
Aren't you the guy who brought up the issue of straw men arguments earlier?
The aim of the strategy is to win.
If you're incapable of understanding the strategy, and prefer to surrender, well then there's not much more to discuss.
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.