Posted on 09/16/2009 7:02:22 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
NATO-led forces are investigating the death of four Marines in eastern Afghanistan after their commanders reportedly rejected requests for artillery fire in a battle with insurgents, the Pentagon said on Wednesday. Tuesday's incident was "under investigation" and details remained unclear, press secretary Geoff Morrell told a news conference. A McClatchy newspapers' journalist who witnessed the battle reported that a team of Marine trainers made repeated appeals for air and artillery support after being pinned down by insurgents in the village of Ganjgal in eastern Kunar province. The U.S. troops had to wait more than an hour for attack helicopters to come to their aid and their appeal for artillery fire was rejected, with commanders citing new rules designed to avoid civilian casualties, the report said.
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
>We have different commanders today than we had years ago. They are politicians, not warriors.
Hackworth would agree if he were still around; he said as much calling them “perfumed princes”.
>Meanwhile, our kids die.
That is the inescapable conclusion of having politically, rather than morally, motivated commanders.
yes they do...
Absent other FACTS, scumbag, I trust the judgment of Marines on the ground over their remote commanders.
4 good men would have had a chance to be alive right now if their commanders had listened to them. Call me crazy.
Exactly.
"...lets not forget the fact that they have no problem killing civilians themselves to up the body count."
And politically-correct, career-minded Marine commanders use the ROE and the military code of justice for cover when their lack of action on requests by MEN WHO ARE THERE gets those good men get killed.
I’m sorry, you made the statement that commanders don’t deal with rumor and innuendo, but rather facts when applying the UCMJ... however it was a strong statement, like the for-all in math or logic.
I have first-hand experience stating different; it is therefore relevant because all that is needed to disprove a for-all statement is to find one instance where it does not hold.
I'm not going to take a news media report at face value and damn commanders in the field for something they may or may not have done, deliberately or not. That's knee jerking and solves nothing.
There is something fundamentally wrong when the commander-in-chief of the armed forces has no military experience whatsoever.
You’re welcome Mom. Being on the front lines, you are entitled to a rant. That’s for sure.
So if you are a good officer and you know those are the ROE and that you can’t support your troops properly are you making a good decision to send your troops into harms way knowing it is likely, based on clear recent experience, that they will need support that you are no longer able to provide?
It is one thing to have a clear mission that must be executed and NOT having the assets to support your troops but it is aonther to have the assets and not be able to use them and still send troops in harms way. It is at least immoral. Is taking this decision to commit troops without support right? These scouting expeditions are not vital under these circumstances with rules of limited engagement.
At the very least, without artillery support available it seems appropriate that the mission would be dealayed until aircraft for support are brought up to a forward location.
If we can’t be committed to “win”, whatever that means in Afghanistan, you are correct, we have no reason to be there. Without commitment it clearly has no strategic value and even then the strategic value is questionable. So long as insurgents can skitter away to Pakistan and find refuge we are not solving anything.
You obviously have a lot more knowledge of commanders and the UCMJ. When I think of UCMJ, I think of Haditha.
4 good men would have had a chance to be alive right now if their commanders had listened to them. Call me crazy.
You're not crazy. The narrative speaks for itself doesn't it? (From the original McClatchy article.):
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/75036.html?storylink=MI_emailed
(snip)..Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.
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.
"We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We've lost today," Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter's repeated demands for helicopters."
(snip)"...The Americans were there to give advice and call for air and artillery support if required."
(snip)
(snip)"...Several U.S. officers said they suspected that the insurgents had been tipped off by sympathizers in the local Afghan security forces or by the village elders,.."
(snip)"..Lt. Fabayo and several other soldiers later said they'd seen women and children in the village shuttling ammunition to fighters positioned in windows and roofs. Across the valley and from their ridgeline outposts, the Afghans and Americans fired back.
(snip)"...At 5:50 a.m., Army Capt. Will Swenson, of Seattle, WA, the trainer of the Afghan Border Police unit in Shakani, began calling for air support or artillery fire from a unit of the Army's 10th Mountain Division. The responses came back: No helicopters were available.
___________________________________________________________ NOTE: The women and children running ammo for the insurgents. The village elders undermining the U.S. efforts and siding with the Insurgency.
NOTE: Obama and McChrystal's new ROE's are protecting and defending the enemy. Not our troops.
Ping to #233.
This is inexcusable.
I haven’t followed Haditha in depth, but my impression of the Haditha case is that a bunch of NCIS agents and JAG officers were running amok at the expense of the marines implicated in the incident.
bttt
BRING OUR TROOPS HOME AT ONCE!!!!!
I would love to see those “commanders” charged. ANY military official that is more concerned with one Afghani over our troops is a disgrace to America. AMERICA FIRST!
Unfortunately, the Grunts get the brunt.
>NOTE: Obama and McChrystal’s new ROE’s are protecting and defending the enemy.
This is commonly called TREASON; anyone who disagrees should be pointed to the Constitution, which defines Treason as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The ROE orders are a signed document, and therefore witness against the issuers. The men in that unit can testify to the results.
Furthermore, when the law (ie orders) prevent you from exercising your natural right to defend yourself, then they are wrong and morally repugnant.
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.