Ambushed Marines' Aid Call 'Rejected'

Military.com ^ | 09/10/09 | Military.com

[AngelesCrestHighway]

NATO-led forces are investigating the death of four Marines in eastern Afghanistan after their commanders reportedly rejected requests for artillery fire in a battle with insurgents, the Pentagon said on Wednesday. Tuesday's incident was "under investigation" and details remained unclear, press secretary Geoff Morrell told a news conference. A McClatchy newspapers' journalist who witnessed the battle reported that a team of Marine trainers made repeated appeals for air and artillery support after being pinned down by insurgents in the village of Ganjgal in eastern Kunar province. The U.S. troops had to wait more than an hour for attack helicopters to come to their aid and their appeal for artillery fire was rejected, with commanders citing new rules designed to avoid civilian casualties, the report said.

[GourmetDan]

Quit trying to cover up your screw-ups, commander.

First you claimed I shared my opinion. The you claimed I presented it as FACT. Then you claimed I was projecting. Then I proved you were lying with your own words. Then you went back to claiming it is just my opinion. The more errors you make the more smoke and mirrors you throw out.

Next you’ll be claiming that the results of any ‘CYA investigation’ are the FACTS.

You are a poster-child for these ‘commanders’.

No wonder good kids are getting killed.

[SE Mom]

The U.S. troops had to wait more than an hour for attack helicopters to come to their aid and their appeal for artillery fire was rejected, with commanders citing new rules designed to avoid civilian casualties, the report said.

[TADSLOS]

Next you’ll be claiming that the results of any ‘CYA investigation’ are the FACTS.

So now you infer that a CYA investigation is forthcoming on the incident. Interesting. You're a crystal ball soothsayer too? If you can project into the future and see that coming, then certainly, you can look back and see the facts as they occurred. Facts please. I'm waiting.

[Alberta's Child]

As I said once before on a different thread on this topic . . .

Incidents like this are major reasons why the most effective fighting forces in U.S. history were those that had a serious distrust -- and in some cases complete disdain -- for the notion of a Federal military command structure. The Green Mountain Boys, Daniel Morgan's Virginia Riflemen, and the Texas Rangers were all perfect cases in point.

I'll also point out that I was heavily courted by one of the U.S. military academies when I was in high school back in the early 1980s. The 1983 Beirut debacle effectively ended any interest I may have had in a military career.

[denydenydeny]

U.S. troops had to wait more than an hour for attack helicopters to come to their aid and their appeal for artillery fire was rejected, with commanders citing new rules designed to avoid civilian casualties, the report said.

No comment.

[Lancey Howard]

The U.S. troops had to wait more than an hour for attack helicopters to come to their aid and their appeal for artillery fire was rejected, with commanders citing new rules designed to avoid civilian casualties, the report said.

God help us.

[Alberta's Child]

Oh, I’m sorry . . . were those 220 U.S. Marines killed in a training exercise?

[Alberta's Child]

Pardon my French, but I don't trust any of the f#%&ers who deign to rule this country -- regardless of their political affiliation.

If that makes me a "liberal," then I don't know what planet you live on. Go through my posts here over the last nine years . . . I'll stack my conservative credentials up against just about anyone on FreeRepublic.

[GourmetDan]

Since you claim to be a commander, your performance shows just what kind of CYA we can expect from ‘commanders’.

You say whatever you want, talk out of both sides of your mouth and (when you get caught) expect everybody to ignore your dis ingenuousness while you call for ‘facts’. I don’t need a crystal ball to see through that.

That might appear to work in the military where you can just tell people to shut up, but you aren’t fooling anybody.

[VOA]

There is absolutely NO reason for us to be in Afghanistan.

Obama's involvement in Afghanistan reminds me of how one of
Bill Clinton's underlings rationalized US involvement in the
Balkans:
"It was the only war we had".

In other words, a left-of-center Democrat needs to conduct a
war to try to keep credibility with as many voters as possible.

Speaking for myself, whether we should still be in Afghanistan
is above my paygrade. What I fear though is that Obama will try
to conduct the campaign with the same sort of hypersensitivity
that LBJ used in The Vietnam war.
Which is a sure path to coming home in shame with tail-between-leg.

[wtc911]

Oh, I’m sorry . . . were those 220 U.S. Marines killed in a training exercise?

______________________________________

Joking about dead Marines?

It is clear that you do not know why they were there. It had nothing to do with, as you defined it, "a military campaign". But don't let being wrong ruin the opportunity for sarcasm about US troops.

[wtc911]

I'll stack my conservative credentials up against just about anyone on FreeRepublic.

_______________________________________

You'd come up short.

[Billthedrill]

Having participated in a few of these investigations I can only concur with your assessment. The article is a bare-bones recitation of a fraction of the facts. I am a little saddened but not really surprised at the number of FReepers who are shouting "cover-up" before the thing even starts. I'd like to remind them that no one in the world would have known of Abu Ghraib had the Army not investigated it, fired the commander, jailed the perpetrators, and published the thing in the open press.

If there is a cover-up it will be the MSM refusing to publish anything that might implicate the ROE dictated by civilian command. That's our job. God bless Free Republic.

[Rebelbase]

VIETNAM II

[stevio]

NATO led yet. Bastards.

[jazusamo]

God help us.

Amen to that, the new ROE are killing our troops and our commanders know it.

[jazusamo]

Speaking for myself, whether we should still be in Afghanistan
is above my paygrade. What I fear though is that Obama will try
to conduct the campaign with the same sort of hypersensitivity
that LBJ used in The Vietnam war.
Which is a sure path to coming home in shame with tail-between-leg.

Very well said, you couldn't have put it any better. Your LBJ/Zero comparison is dead on the money, IMO.

[TADSLOS]

Since you claim to be a commander, your performance shows just what kind of CYA we can expect from ‘commanders’.

You say whatever you want, talk out of both sides of your mouth and (when you get caught) expect everybody to ignore your dis ingenuousness while you call for ‘facts’. I don’t need a crystal ball to see through that.

That might appear to work in the military where you can just tell people to shut up, but you aren’t fooling anybody.

I'll assume at this point that you can't back up your claim, but will continue with the same "back against the wall" diatribe. There's no sense in responding to me again. I won't return the favor, other than to say this: The article 15-6 and/or article 32 investigation that comes from this incident will let the chips fall where they may. That's why we commanders have those UCMJ tools. We don't deal in rumors and innuendo of fact.

[RC2]

We have different commanders today than we had years ago. They are politicians, not warriors. Meanwhile, our kids die.

[TADSLOS]

Having participated in a few of these investigations I can only concur with your assessment. The article is a bare-bones recitation of a fraction of the facts. I am a little saddened but not really surprised at the number of FReepers who are shouting "cover-up" before the thing even starts. I'd like to remind them that no one in the world would have known of Abu Ghraib had the Army not investigated it, fired the commander, jailed the perpetrators, and published the thing in the open press.

If there is a cover-up it will be the MSM refusing to publish anything that might implicate the ROE dictated by civilian command. That's our job. God bless Free Republic.

Thanks, and I agree. IMO, the real culprit here in the big picture is Obama, his NSC staff and to some degree McChrystal for directing/implementing a restrictive ROE that WILL NOT WORK under the circumstances. I also agree that the media will do whatever damage control is necessary to protect Obama, to include skewering commanders on the ground in theater from McChrystal on down for allowing this incident to happen, regardless of the facts. Obama has called Afghanistan the war worth winning, but disavows the use of the term victory and calls our war there merely a contingency operation. That's all we really need to know on how this will ultimately turns out unless drastic and timely changes in mission and resources are made. I am not optimistic that any of those measures will happen.