Posted on 12/13/2009 6:49:35 PM PST by USALiberty
New military rules of engagement ostensibly to protect Afghan civilians are putting the lives of U.S. forces in jeopardy, claim Army and Marine sources, as the Taliban learns to game plan based the rules' imposed limits.
The rules of engagement, or ROEs, apply to all coalition forces of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Their enactment is in response to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's complaints over mounting civilian deaths apparently occurring in firefights.
Despite the fact that the newly arrived U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, imposed the more restrictive ROEs to minimize the killing of innocent civilians, however, the Taliban is well aware of them and has its own forces acting in ways to counteract them.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
They can’t engage or shoot unless in dire danger. This means if a trooper clearly sees a Talib planting an IED, s/he cannot fire at him/her/it. This is because the IED over there is not specifically targeting him/her.
IT ONLY SOUNDS MADE UP...
THAT is the intent of the Guy in the White House.
Will the generals put an end to this madness?
” No night or surprise searches
Villagers are to be warned prior to searches
Afghan National Army, or ANA, or Afghan National Police, or ANP, must accompany U.S. units on searches
U.S. soldiers may not fire at insurgents unless they are preparing to fire first
U.S. forces cannot engage insurgents if civilians are present
Only women can search women
Troops can fire on insurgents if they catch them placing an IED but not if insurgents walk away from where the explosives are.”
Yes they are.
Obama intends to lose this war in the most humiliating, for America, way possible
The Generals?
Your kidding right?
lol. Those guys are probably willing to follow whatever Obama says.
This is absolutely silly!
You seem to forget that the good General was chosen/handpicked by the Islamist in Chief to be in command in Afganistan, so what else would he do?
I agree 100%. If McChrystal had any integrity or decency at all he would quit rather than jeopardize the lives of our sons and daughters with these assinine "rules". Apparently, McChrystal is just another selfish buffoon, begging for another star.
You have officers that are patriots, and officers that learn to play the political game and get their cheese. We remember the patriots, and soon forget the others.
Pull them out, if they can’t fight.
It’s not silly, when it is costing the lives of our soldiers.
Two real examples I’ve heard of:
Can’t fire on women carrying ammo to the fighters who are shooting at our troops. Cease fire when the women are passing out the ammo.
Can’t fire at the Taliban with the binoculars, adjusting the mortar fire on our troops. He is not holding a “weapon,” merely binoculars to help improve the aim of the mortar teams killing our troops.
bttt
I mean silly rule not silly concern about the rule
Not only in Afghanistan.
I have considered that unacceptable in Iraq, too.
While I supported both Iraq I and II, it became evident immediately that our soldiers were hobbled by political correctness.
I immediately changed my wind. I would not fight any war under the rules our youngest and finest have to follow.
Fight to win; to win quickly or not at all.
Consider no target off limits under any circumstances if our troops are being fired on.
No exceptions.
Unless, of course, the cowards that make up the stupid ROEs are there beside me. Yes, specially the CIC!
I had read an article by an ex-Green Beret who said there would be less collateral damage in the long run, if we just went in and brought the enemy to their knees by fighting with a vengeance.
I know, I was just cranky in general after reading that crap.
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.