What exactly has obama been doing for the past nine months? How many times has he had meeting with his top generals in the Joint Chiefs? Yes there are other things to consider, being the president, but foreign wars seem to take precedent ... at least in my opinion.
Eight or nine months, it would seem to me, is a fair amount of time to devise a military strategy in a specific theater of war ... FDR (the bad Roosevelt) and Marshal seemed to have no trouble devising and executing military strategy in the same time period.
The President is obviously neglecting his duty as CINC. Men are dying and he is spending all this time grabbing power for his party.
You can’t use WWII tactics in this situation.
Another difference, There are several countries who have weapons that would take mins. to reach us and take out major cities.
Also in WWII the enemy was isolated in a certain radius.
There are mega millions of Muslims in Western Europe.
Millions in the U.S.
And millions all over the world period.
Obama had enough time to approve the new Rules of Engagement that tie the hands of our military in Afghanistan and protect civilians. Last night I found this article about the Afghans and it looks like the regular Afghan people don’t like the new ROEs.
Afghans Protest New Rules of Engagement
September 28, 2009: The U.S. is increasingly encountering angry Afghan civilians, who demand that the Americans act more decisively in pursuing and killing Taliban gunman. Even if it puts Afghan civilians at risk. This is an unexpected side effect of a change, three months ago, of the U.S. rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan.
This was in response to popular (or at least media) anger at civilians killed by American smart bombs. As a result of the new ROE, it became much more difficult to get permission drop a smart bomb when there might be civilians nearby. Now American commanders have to decide who they shall respond too; Afghan civilians asking for relief from Taliban oppression, or Taliban influenced media condemning the U.S. for any Afghan civilians killed, or thought to be killed, by American firepower. What to do?
(snip)
Under the new ROE, you must, in effect, do a casualty analysis and consult a lawyer, before a deliberate missile or smart bomb attack is made on the Taliban. To their credit, the U.S. Air Force targeting specialists (who do most of this) can carry out the analysis quickly (often within minutes). Even the lawyers have gotten quick at the decision making game. The bad news is that attacks are often called off just because there’s some small risk of harming civilians.
The Taliban are aware of the ROE, and take advantage of it. The Taliban try to live among civilians as much as possible. But the Taliban and al Qaeda do have to move around, and the ability of NATO and U.S. ground forces, aircraft and UAVs to keep eyes on a Taliban leader for weeks at a time, has led to the deaths of many smug guys who thought they had beat the system.
The U.S. Air Force has managed to reduce civilian casualties, from deliberate air attack, to near zero. Most of the Afghan civilian casualties occur when airpower is called in to help NATO and U.S. troops under attack. In these conditions, the ROE is much more flexible, but now Taliban use of civilians as human shields can sometimes be allowed to get friendly troops killed. The tactics used by foreign troops will change to adapt to this, and there may be tense situations where Afghan troops are getting hammered, calling for a smart bomb, and told that they can’t have it because of the risk of civilian casualties. Another risk is the possibility of the Taliban dragging some women and kids along with them when they move, simply to exploit the ROE and avoid getting hit with a smart bomb.
Excerpt: See Full Article at http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20090928.aspx