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.
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.
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.
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.
Does anyone note the apparent logical inconsistency in a strategy that dictates a concentration of military effort to defend civilian enclaves, but prohibits any active engagement in the vicinity of civilians? This move to static passivity will IMO prove to be an ignominious failure. It takes our highly mobile and aggressive forces and turns them into a stationary mall security force, which in turn will result in any artillery or air support actually being expended CLOSER to sensitive civilian areas.
It simply stretches credulity that these people could conceivably be reviving distant political micro-management of tactical warfare after the experience of VN.
Replace McCrystal with Petraeus.
Sun Tzu would not do it this way.