Posted on 09/24/2009 3:19:19 AM PDT by kingattax
When enemy action kills our troops, it's unfortu nate. When our own moral fecklessness murders those in uniform, it's unforgivable.
In Afghanistan, our leaders are complicit in the death of each soldier, Marine or Navy corpsman who falls because politically correct rules of engagement shield our enemies.
Mission-focused, but morally oblivious, Gen. Stan McChrystal conformed to the Obama Way of War by imposing rules of engagement that could have been concocted by Code Pink:
* Unless our troops in combat are absolutely certain that no civilians are present, they're denied artillery or air support.
* If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to "break contact" -- to retreat.
These ROE are a cave-in to the Taliban's shameless propaganda campaign that claimed innocents were massacred every time our aircraft appeared overhead. (Afghan President Mohammed Karzai and our establishment media backed the terrorists.)
The Taliban's goal was to level the playing field -- to deny our troops their technological edge. Our enemies more than succeeded.
And what has our concern for the lives of Taliban sympathizers accomplished? The Taliban now make damned sure that civilians are present whenever they conduct an ambush or operation.
So they attack -- and we quit the fight, lugging our dead and wounded back to base.
We've been through this b.s. before. In Iraq, we wanted to show respect to our enemies, so the generals announced early on that we wouldn't enter mosques. The result? Hundreds of mosques became terrorist safe houses, bomb factories and weapons caches.
Why is this so hard to figure out? We tell our enemies we won't attack X. So they exploit X. Who wouldn't?
It isn't just that war is hell. It's that war must be hell, otherwise why would the enemy ever quit?
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Peters nails it again!
Obie should be removed from office. The libs scream when Joe Wilson utters a truth, but are damned silent when troops get killed needlessly.
Their innocent blood is on Obozo’s hands and God is the avenger of such things.
It’s obvious that Obama wants the US to lose the war on Jihad, and his Muslim pals will feel right at home here when the greater Caliphate takes over. We’ll be a third world hellhole by then. The real question is how long we’ll put up with Obama and pals. There has to be a ‘let them eat cake’ moment.
ARRENTION talk show hosts please pick this up!!!!!!Somone help our troops!!!!!!
This pisses me off to no end...
I survived as as tank commander in Vietnam by burning up my .50 cal barrels..I carried 3 extra ones strapped to the side of the turret. Instead of a regular .50 ammo can, I placed a footlocker on top the turret and filled it with 50 ammo and linked it to the machine gun.
In the woods anything thing that moved I opened fire.. no base camp attorney is going to tell me different.
I am firmly convinced that at least 40% of the names on The Wall are a direct result of Johnson and his ilk’s stupid ROE.
REPOST of a REPOSTED REPOST:
Saturday, September 12, 2009 9:32:22 AM · 126 of 3,316
MestaMachine to maine-iac7
REPOST of a REPOST
EVERYONE NEEDS TO SEE THIS!!!
Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:40:05 AM · 139 of 187
MestaMachine to RabidBartender; 444Flyer
REPOST:
Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:36:09 AM · 8 of 15
MestaMachine to ImpBill
THIS is why Peters, and many guys with boots on the ground, are angry at the changes in ROE and McChrystal’s throwing caution to the wind where it comes to protecting our troops.
He thinks our TROOPS have acted too defensively in their own best interest and caused the “poor, helpless civilians” humiliation.
NOTE THE DATE.
General wants more troops for Afghan war
By: The Associated Press - The Sentinel-Record - Published: 08/02/2009
MORE TROOPS: Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. general in charge of turning around the war in Afghanistan, may recommend significant changes to U.S. and NATO operations in a report due in August.WASHINGTON - The U.S. general put in charge of turning around the war in Afghanistan is likely to recommend significant changes in the campaign and may include a request for more U.S. forces that the White House is expected to resist.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s long-awaited reassessment of the war against Taliban insurgents aims for a transformation of the shaky relationship between U.S. forces and Afghan civilians as troops press a counterinsurgency strategy of clearing and holding populated areas, said officials apprised of the report’s contents.
The biggest change urged in McChrystal’s report is a “cultural shift” in how U.S. and foreign troops operate - ranging from how they live and travel among the Afghan population to where and how they fight, a senior military official in Kabul said Friday.
The latest draft of the assessment also urges speeding up the training of Afghan soldiers and police and nearly doubling their numbers to roughly 400,000, said a senior defense official in Washington, one of several uniformed and civilian officials who spoke on condition anonymity because the report has not been made public.
As McChrystal readies the assessment of the war, due in two weeks, numerous U.S. officials and outsiders aware of his thinking suggest that he will request in a companion report that more American troops, probably including marines, be added next year.
Several people familiar with the work being done cautioned that McChrystal could opt not to ask for an increase at all - a recognition that President Barack Obama and other White House advisers would not look favorably on adding new numbers to U.S. forces after already agreeing to boost their ranks by 21,000 troops earlier this year.
The main recommendations for change stem from the military’s new counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, which is now designed to focus less on going after Taliban strongholds and more on protecting the local population.
The new U.S. strategy is also aimed at helping develop an Afghan government that civilians will embrace rather than siding with the insurgents, two senior military officials said. To achieve that, one official said, the latest draft of McChrystal’s assessment includes the following recommendations:
- Using intelligence less to hunt insurgents and more to understand local, tribal and social power structures in the areas where they operate. McChrystal is considering concentrating troops around populated areas rather than going after sparsely populated mountain areas where Taliban hide.
- Getting troops more active in fighting corruption. U.S. forces will need to take care in their dealings with local Afghan leaders to ensure that they are not perceived by the Afghan population to be empowering corrupt officials.
*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.
Roger that. My best friend was a year ahead of me in high school. He was drafted into the marines after he graduated. He was killed in Hue during 68 Tet.
I went to the army recruiter and told him to assign me where I can kill a lot of Vietnamese. He told me armor.
I would have a .45 cal pistol, a grease gun, a grenade launcher, main gun, a .50 cal, a 60 coaxe machine gun. I did not know I would have claymore mines at that time.
My friend rests in peace.
That was something to see - .50 barrels glowing red and sagging.
We burned up both of ours on our 1st trip up the Perfume River during Tet 68. We learned our lesson and back in Da Nang we scrounged extra barrels. For the rest of our missions we carried two spares for each gun and 500 round cans of ammo. We’d fire up 500 rounds and change barrels. Our M-60 used 1000 round belts and also had two spares, when the belt was fired up the barrel was changed. No more drooping gun barrels. We were fortunate to have mutual coverage with the guns.
I don’t imagine it would be as easy on a tank. Our boat’s guns were on deck mounts and served by two men, barrel changes took less than a minute.
You need a bootlick General Staff, lots of bureaucratic ticket punching officers, to issue these orders.
That’s why it sucks to be combat enlisted. In the F you ranks, and have yuppie, careerist, golf loving, G4 jet dreaming pukes above you.
The idea behind that asinine order is that if we cause no harm to “civilians” (anyone who isn’t shooting at us at the time) they will love us and support us and not join the Taliban.
What our peace freak liberals don’t seem to understand is that even though the Taliban routinely detonate car and truck bombs in civilian areas - markets are a primary target - causing massive civilian casualties it doesn’t seem to hurt their recruiting.
A tribal society respects strength, not kid gloves.
My father was a up from the ranks Major in Patton’s 3rd.
It was common in Europe in WWII for advancing American units to tell the mayor to tell them where the snipers and rear guard and traps were. That if any were encountered, they’d shell the village flat. After a a while it was common to encounter village representatives miles before, or the day before who came to us before possible entry.
All I know is that my son took three deployments under GWB with equanimity, but is kicking himself in the ass for re-enlisting last year. He sneers over the fact that Uncle demands to know where ALL his off-post, personal firearms are located (”because they care about soldier suicides”), yet Uncle simultaneously sets up the people at the pointed end with ROE’s that make them targets.
The ROE are tantamount to death sanctions and are so totally recklessly negligent to amount to grounds for impeachment.
I got some gloves from supply..its all a matter knowing the headspace and timing...I was on a Sheridan tank, the .50 is mounted on top the turret.
The main gun was 152mm..we had heat rounds and a “flechette” round which had 10,000 metal darts in the shell casing. The TC’s firing and control handle was moved from the sitting position and placed so the main gun and 60 could be fired from the hip while standing in the cupola..
It was a very brave Gook to rise up and attempt to fire his RPG on me..
That was a real war..and your father a warrior.
Loved firing that 152. Used to laugh when the TC opened up with the .50 - bap, bap, bap. Then on the way and the whole world shook!
If you ain’t Cav..
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.