Replies

64-65-66 It’s not defeatist. Our current rules have already secured us defeat.

rules-of-engagement-in-afghanistan-costing-our-troops-lives/

If our government refuses to fight to win, then extricating our troops is the one and only action that makes sense.

I’d rather stay and win. But these rules make it impossible.

Jonathan S. Landay / McClatchy Washington Bureau:
‘We’re pinned down:’ 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush — Taliban Ambush in Eastern Kunar Kills Four U.S. Marines — In a sad for the U.S. Marine Corps, four Marines have perished in Afghanistan. ___________________ The McCltachy article becomes suspect by introducing obtuse foolishness like this:
Quote:
The lack of timely air support...was a consequence of the manpower and equipment shortages bequeathed by the Bush administration’s failure to secure Afghanistan against a resurgence of the Taliban, al Qaida and allied groups before turning to invade Iraq.
...
The denial of heavy artillery fire to those trapped in Ganjgal also has roots in the Bush administration’s decision to divert resources to Iraq and the resulting stress on the U.S. military.

Those comments would seem to questionably accurate at best, politically motivated (understandable given his background) and tangentially if at all related to the story. They discredit the rest of his reporting in my view.
More sensible is this comment:
Quote:
There are a limited number of U.S. helicopters in Kunar, a stretch of craggy mountains and serpentine valleys bordering Pakistan where airpower gives a vital edge to overstretched U.S. troops fighting guerrillas who know every nook and trail of the area. Unbeknownst to those trapped in the Ganjgal kill zone, however, the available aircraft were tied up in the Shiryak Valley to the north in a battle in which two pilots were wounded, U.S. commanders said.
I seem to recall efforts at home to declare failure back in 2007 - back when the fighting and dying were at their worst - and to ensure the blame for that failure didn’t rest with the troops but was passed on to the Generals who had sacrificed their soldiers’ lives on the altar of appeasement to their civilian masters. Some might recall “Betrayus” - a disgusting trope that made its way from certain web sites (more concerned with winning elections than battles with guns) to the pages of the New York Times - at a discount.

You need no reminder of that, I am sure. Of days when scant available facts (and abundant fallacies) in initial reports were augmented with the assumptions of those who were most likely to be wrong, whose motives and commitment would require them to ignore or dismiss follow-on reports from on-scene (from those whose every word had mere days before been unimpeachable Gospel truth) and moveon to the next preliminary report, the new outrage of the day.

QUOTES - Initial reports indicate that the troops requested and were given air support and indirect fire, said Sam Truelove, a spokeswoman for the International Security Assistance Force.

“The tactical directive does not preclude any fires for self defense,” said Truelove, a lieutenant commander in the Royal Navy.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said that it did take “some time” for air support to arrive, but the delay was due to distance, not the rules of engagement.

He said the deaths are under investigation, adding, “We will hopefully get to the bottom and figure out if everything operated according to protocol.”

LINKS http://www.mudvillegazette.com/032602.html