Posted on 06/25/2010 8:44:27 AM PDT by GoCards
Edited on 06/25/2010 11:06:48 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Published June 25, 2010
| FOXNews.com
June 16: U.S. Central Commander Gen. David Petraeus testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, before the Senate Armed Services Committee. (AP)
A military source close to Gen. David Petraeus told Fox News that one of the first things the general will do when he takes over in Afghanistan is to modify the rules of engagement to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy, though a Petraeus spokesman pushed back on the claim.
Troops on the ground and some military commanders have said the strict rules -- aimed at preventing civilian casualties -- have effectively forced the troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.
The military source who has talked with Petraeus said the general will make those changes. Other sources were not so sure, but said they wouldn't be surprised to see that happen once Petraeus takes command.
Welcome.:) Hoping and praying this is good news for our troops for a change.
I certainly hope Petraeus doesn’t get the enemy angry with us.
IT IS TIME TO TAKE THE GLOVES OFF AND STOP DELIVERING THE PIZZAS!
I really suspected this was coming after the little talk that Gates gave yesterday, he laid the ground work for this. Gen. Petraeus is too smart not to have talked to Zer0 about this and the pull out date before accepting the job.
Very good news and thanks for the ping!
I don’t agree. I want the so-called senators who believe in handcuffing our troops to say so, on the record.
Freudian slip? LOL!!!
Gor it!?
And lube the ammo with pigfat, while we’re at it-!!
That's an excellent point!! McCrystal threw himself under the bus, but maybe he got his point across. His actions may save many American lives!
Looks like Petraeus told Obama what his conditions were if he was going to take the job. Petraeus must have told Obama that if he did not have the sole authority to decide on how to prosecute the war, Obama could find someone else.
Thanks for the ping, 444!
“Catch and Release” - 0bama
Welcome Jaz.:)
They have some really bad RoE’s over there from what I have read.
One point that someone made-I can’t remember who-maybe it was McChrystal- not sure-anyway-he said that just killing the enemy wasn’t enough. He said that the Russians killed over a million in their conflict in Afghanistan and it didn’t get them anywhere. Reading that really bothered me.
A little naive, aren't we? If Petreaus aims to win this war, while Obama and the Dems want to leave as soon as they get done with the next elections (which they do), they will not want to confirm Petreaus. They will then come up with smears against him to keep him from getting confirmed, the same way they smeared him before on Iraq, and the same way they got rid of McChrystal without any real cause.
Dem Senators will never say why they are doing what they are doing, and they will have the MSM parroting their pretend reasons until the illiterate masses believe it is the truth.
If Petreaus wants to further American interests, he needs to take advantage of this opportunity, which was handed to him by Obama's desire to make an example of McChrystal. He needs to get confirmed first, and he needs to treat it just like a Supreme Court nomination, being as vague as possible, so that he can get confirmed. For example, when asked about tactics, he should say that he needs to get there first, and study the situation and ask the people on the ground, and then he will decide what to do.
Once he gets there, if he wants to win the war (and I think he does), then he needs to implement a strategy aimed at gaining victory. He has done it in Iraq; he can do it in Afghanistan. The Obama administration will resist; they do not want to win. But once Petreaus is there, and is succeeding, they will have a difficult time preventing him from doing what he wants, up to a point. Petreaus will have a window of opportunity to regain the initiative, and save the military from having to withdraw in what would be portrayed as a defeat. He is a patriot, and he will do all he can to prevent that.
And for him to get a chance to serve, he has to get past those idiot Senators. So, he needs to save his intentions for those who matter, the Taliban.
I read somewhere recently there are actually “armed” soldiers on patrol- WITH NO BULLETS in their guns.
Here’s the link to the story:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/25/petraeus-modify-afghanistan-rules-engagement-source-says/
It's a start.
There is still much work to be done. I do not expect them to be a shining example of democracy but this little change would allow a victory of some sort. The current ROE guaranteed failure.
Working under a commander in chief who doesn't believe in victory is tough enough.
100% agree.
Then again, Petraeus may be putting the fear of God into the minds of our enemies over there. And he's backing our troops in their mission.
6/25/10
“Islamist websites: McChrystal fired because Afghan war is lost”
Petraeus might be sending a message from America to our enemies:
“Reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.”
He isn't leaving our troops dangling in the wind in theatre during the leadership interim by leaking this out. He's stabilizing morale so it won't plummet. And hopefully, he's sending a message he means business.
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.