Petraeus' Rules of Engagement: Tougher Than McChrystal's

Time ^ | 08/06/2010 | Jason Motlagh

[Kimberly GG]

*bump*

[Sprite518]

We lost Vietnam by restricting what our troops can do. We are doing the same STUPID tactic in Afghanistan!

[Sprite518]

Prove it is not true. Links please?

First, what do you think the enemy is going to do once they read our rules of engagement. Oh well besides laugh at our dumba$$ rules? Hint: They will not abide by it?

Here look at this link. It will get your blood boiling about the Rules of Engagement. BTW, I heard the military now gives awards for not killing anyone in Afghanistan. Wonderful! (sarcam off)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGi427clgyk

[Gritty]

We lost Vietnam by restricting what our troops can do.

No we didn't, but it made it a lot longer to get in a position where the North decided they couldn't win and we finally had a brokered peace and pulled out.

Then, after Nixon resigned, the Democrat Congress pulled the military aid rug out from under the South Vietnamese and the North invaded. The South couldn't fight without bullets nor the air power we previously promised in case the North invaded again. They got neither because of the jubilantly delighted Democrat Congress (they finally succeeded in getting the War lost).

The Vietnamese War was lost as a direct result of actions of the Democrat controlled Congress - not restrictions on our troops before we pulled out. It didn't have to end that way and likely wouldn't have if Nixon had been able to stay in office.

Things haven't changed a whit for the better in 40 years. They have just gotten worse. The problem is the treasonous dirtbags who coinhabit this country with the rest of us and now happen to have a vice lock on power.

I'm not trying to hijack the thread, just setting the record straight. Today our "history" books ignore silly things like the truth if it makes the treasonous Liberals (but, I repeat myself) look bad.

*Carry on*

[gandalftb]

Right and wrong.

The Viet Nam war was fought and lost in the halls of Congress.

You are correct that we will use the "same STUPID tactic in Afghanistan".

[gandalftb]

The new ROE is hardly something I can publish first in FR for your satisfaction.

Take a look at this link, it contradicts the Time article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0805/Afghanistan-war-Will-the-new-Petraeus-rules-of-engagement-make-troops-safer

Here's another link that backs up my point:

http://www.marine-corps-news.com/2010/08/petraeus_reloads_rules_of_enga.htm

One other improvement to the ROE is that sub-commanders cannot make the ROE more restrictive, nothing can be added to it locally without agreement from HQ.

Anything more detailed other than what I've offered is classified, but the ROE's will start tricking out over the next few weeks when the embeds get a hold of them.

[gandalftb]

A Point of Order for FR comments: You will get a much better response if you offer facts in support of your point, rather that saying “prove it is not true”.

[Sprite518]

Well then Mr. Sgt At Arms did you not say,

“This story is just not true. I have seen the new ROE’s and they have several important improvements to counter-fire.”

You said that with nothing to back it up? Just sayin..

[Sprite518]

I just read both articles and they are not as detailed as the Time article. They really do not add anything to this debate. Sorry but not impressed with your sources.

[gandalftb]

But you're impressed with Time magazine as a source?

A better source than USA Today, The Christian Science Monitor and marine-corps-news.com?

They "do not add anything to this debate" Hmmm. Here are some cuts from those sources:

"The updated rules do not substantially change how and when firepower can be used, said Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a military spokesman in Afghanistan."

"The rules do not prevent commanders from using firepower, such as artillery or airstrikes, in self-defense"

"The rules appear to relax restrictions on the use of deadly force"

Here's a source for ya, Petraeus himself, ROE Tactical Directive 2010-08-CA-004:

http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/isaf-commander-issues-updated-tactical-directive.html

If this is going to be a debate, you have to post sources too, otherwise I'm just chasing your broad, generalized dismissals.