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.
>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.
Can't be said often enough. Does this remind anyone of Somalia? Dems have always considered our troops expendable in order to save scoundrels, terrorist and deviants. The next time some idiot tells you that overturning the libs in congress isn't important remind them of this and other moments in history where rats cost precious lives. The next life lost may just be the schmuck arguing about sitting out the next election or it could be you.