Much of the ROE in WWII cost the lives of tens of thousands of Americans including relatives of mine.
So we should have cut and run, don’t think so.
It is not one person there but have many relatives there.
Two of my good friends, a ret. Marine Major and a ret. Navy Capt. SEAL along with other active military neighbors,
have other views than yours.
Sooooo, are you defending Obama and McChrystal's passive and deadly (to our servicemembers) ROE’s?
*PLEASE NOTE THIS PARAGRAPH IN PARTICULAR.*
“In preparing his assessment of the Afghan command, McChrystal found an American military culture that showed a great concern for troops’ protection – sometimes at the expense of their relations with Afghan civilians.
To change those relations, McChrystal wants American forces to think twice about basic conduct - for instance no longer pointing their guns at people when they pass in convoy or blocking narrow roads with their convoys, while relegating Afghans to the ditches.
To deal with the most contentious aspect of those shaky relations, McChrystal has already committed to try to reduce civilian casualties by issuing new orders that restrict when troops should call in bombing strikes.”
http://www.hotsr.com/news/WireHeadlines/2009/08/02/general-wants-more-troops-for-afghan-war-26.php
From this posted article by McClatchy:
“...U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village.”