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.
” 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
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.
Pull them out, if they can’t fight.
bttt
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!
“U.S. TROOPS BATTLE BOTH TALIBAN AND THEIR OWN RULES”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2387602/posts
“New Obama Military Rules of Engagement:, Don’t shoot back”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2384383/posts
“RULES OF ENGAGEMENT REVISITED’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2346439/posts
“OBAMA’S RULES OF ENGAGEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN COSTING OUR TROOPS LIVES”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2335891/posts
“THE RULES MURDERING OUR TROOPS”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2347085/posts
____________________________________________________________
http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/official_texts/Tactical_Directive_090706.pdf
“...I recognize that the carefully controlled and disciplined employment of force entails risks to our troops...”
“...The Taliban cannot militarily defeat us - but we can defeat ourselves...”
This is all that comes to my mind when I read that:
“We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We’ve lost today,” Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter’s repeated demands for helicopters.
“’We’re pinned down:’ 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2335142/posts
____________________________________________________________
“Obama orders Miranda rights in Afghanistan”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2388364/posts
“Reading Miranda Rights to Terrorists Is ‘Crazy’ and ‘Stupid,’ Say GOP Congressmen”
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49738
“Miranda rights for terrorists: Next, toothbrushes and teddy bears!”
McChrystal had these orders forced upon him by Barack Obama and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and was ordered to say that he alone issued the orders.
Their enactment is in response to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's complaints over mounting civilian deaths apparently occurring in firefights.Remove US troops from any role protecting Karzai's sorry ass, and see how long A) he lives or B) if he survives how long before he learns to keep his puppet mouth closed.
“
Rules of engagement killing U.S. soldiers
“
Maybe a month ago, I heard a National Public Radio (NPR) reporter
interviewing a Afghani tribal elder.
He complained about the local NATO troops because “they won’t shoot
back at Talibanis/terrorists that shot at them”. Those NATO troops
were from Germany; their local commander did consent to an interview and said
their instructions were to hold fire if there was any possibility
of hitting civilians.
AND
The Afgahni tribal elder said he wanted AMERICAN soldiers.
Why?
Because, in so many words: “THEY SHOOT BACK WHEN THEY ARE SHOT AT”
IIRC, there was no interview with the American commander in an
adjacent area...probably didn’t want it broadcast that his contingent
actually believed in a robust response. Which I suspect is beyond the
ROEs issued by Gen. McCrytal (sp?).
This is why I guffawed at Obama’s “presidential” speech at West
Point...unless he REALLY gives the “boots on the ground” from the
USA full/clear permission to shoot when shot at...he might as well
simply withdraw them.