Posted on 08/04/2010 6:03:10 PM PDT by Pan_Yan
WASHINGTON -- Afghanistan commander Army Gen. David Petraeus has renewed orders to American troops to refrain from calling in artillery or air power when battling Taliban forces unless they're certain that no civilians are present.
The Aug. 1 order, Petraeus' first since he assumed command early this summer from ousted Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was an effort to fine-tune a McChrystal directive that had angered some U.S. troops, who said the restrictions on the use of artillery and air power exposed them to greater danger. Petraeus' order, unclassified portions of which were released Wednesday, seemed unlikely to mollify that complaint, however.
In his directive, Petraeus sought to strike a balance between protecting the population - the cornerstone of counterinsurgency - and minimizing the risks to U.S. and allied troops.
He wrote that protecting civilians "does not prevent commanders from protecting the lives of their men and women as a matter of self-defense where it is determined no other options are available to effectively counter the threat."
Petraeus, however, used virtually the same language as McChrystal to prohibit the use of artillery and airstrikes unless a commander knows civilians won't be wounded or killed.
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
You can call for it but the only arty your gonna get is from the enemy mortars and RPGs.
All the enemy has to do is stand kids in front of them and shoot.
And now we have to have Afgans with US on every patrol? Talk about telegraphing your punch.
This is going to result in many more civilian casualties
Use more force - kill more civilians - create more resistance.
THIS IS NOT CORRECT. If it were true the Taliban would have won long ago, since they kill more civilians than anyone.
Obama has done a fine job of ruining the careers of Generals.
One more on the way down.
It's amazing how quickly FReepers either turn on and trash or fight to the death to defend military officers whom they've only read one or two articles about.
I have no faith in a good outcome when dems/progressives are running a war.
I was thinking when Obama named Petraeus that his career would not end well. I even wondered if he was named to purposely ruin him.
This is an emotional thing in my family.
One thing I do know is that we need to win or get out. All I care about is more families of soldiers dying to keep Obama from looking bad.
Karzai is already schmoozing up to Iran. But then, he knows when we are leaving.
As I've told several people on this thread there are no good choices. I want us to win. I don't see a path to victory, especially with this administration in charge. But leaving has it's own risks and I don't want to see the next generation pay in blood for this generations mistakes.
No good choices.
I have no problem leaving there. The same enemies can come through our southern border. They even have conclaves around the US.
Lets not forget they are going to establish their trophy mosque at the heart of Ground Zero.
Supposedly we went there to keep Al Qaeda from establishing training camps and to get Bin Laden.
The tragedy of Vietnam was 58000 deaths of brave troops for nothing.
Leftists cannot be allowed to run a war.
Who knows? Nothing surprises me anymore. We will probably find Osama Bin Laden living in New Jersey.
I posted this article because it’s news. I have responded to people who posted to me and I have tried to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion with some of them. You, on the other hand, seem to have a great desire to vilify me with false opinions that I do not have and then use me as a scapegoat for your rants. No thank you.
You sound like a pacifist, hypocritically praying for our loved ones, ushering feint support, while supporting a position (Again, defending "civilians") which makes their jobs even more hellish due to the fact they are fighting a war while walking on eggshells. Can you engage in battle knowing you will cause a great amount of collateral damage? If it ensures a quick victory, takes out and important target, are the actions correct?
Guess what, the Taliban have been "conditioning" the populous just like the Viet Cong did for a long time. Crippling the economy, threatening harm, destroying poppy fields, and striking fear into the population based on our existence. What is you solution? COIN them with kindness? Protecting their opium fields? Paying them double then what the Taliban are paying? There was a tremendous effort in the Open Arms Program in Vietnam to turn members of the Viet Cong and the civilians to "our side". Somewhat effective but...
The more soldiers, the harder establishing logistics based on terrain.
The population has strong ideological and religious inclinations that seem impossible to break. They do not seek Western stability. We are on their home turf trying to force a square peg into a small circle.
Our civilian commanders seem disinterested and think conjuring up Barbara Eden from a bottle to wish tranquility is all it takes. One cannot fight a pure war or fight with their hands behind their backs (Stringent ROEs)
Carpet bombing and air superiority helps in some ways but are not completely effective against guerrilla warfare. Also, occupying cities become a disadvantage in this type of war environment/ideological war because you need to concentrate of turning people who hate us into supporting us. Top of that, they have no problems helping our enemy which makes the job that much tougher. Heck, the Taliban have a whole network woven into the “civilian” population that consist of different tribes, meaning the Taliban is evolving. The enemy is not divided, in fact they (”Civilians”) are strongly united by ideology, galvanized by a war with the West.
Are we there to mainly kill the Taliban or wasting lives while spending billions to protect their population? That is McChrystal/Obama "tactic"/ meaning of why we are there, to focus on protecting the civilian population (Not war) and it seems to be Petraeus/Obama "tactic" as well. Pakistan and a willing populous protect the Taliban, hmmm...
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.