Afghanistan war
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Rules of engagement killing U.S. soldiers
You won't believe how politics handcuff troops in Afghanistan
Posted: December 13, 2009
7:26 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – New military rules of engagement ostensibly to protect Afghan civilians are putting the lives of U.S. forces in jeopardy, claim Army and Marine sources, as the Taliban learns to game plan based the rules' imposed limits.
The rules of engagement, or ROEs, apply to all coalition forces of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Their enactment is in response to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's complaints over mounting civilian deaths apparently occurring in firefights.
Despite the fact that the newly arrived U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, imposed the more restrictive ROEs to minimize the killing of innocent civilians, however, the Taliban is well aware of them and has its own forces acting in ways to counteract them.
The impact of new restrictions has created increasing frustration and concern among U.S. Army and Marine Corps troops who now are compelled to follow these rules despite the danger of letting the Taliban live to fight again another day.
Critics see the new ROEs being more oriented toward defensive rather than offensive operations, as evidenced by recent charges of murder against two U.S. Army snipers because they had targeted a Taliban commander who reportedly wasn't holding a weapon.
The actual ROEs are said to be classified U.S. and NATO secrets, but based on individual soldier those restrictions include the following:
To get permission to go after him, U.S. troops had to get 11 separate Afghan, U.S. and international forces' approval to the plan. The approval, however, did not come until well into the next day. By then, the Taliban commander had moved on, to the consternation of the villagers who had provided the tip. Observers have claimed that it can take some 96 hours to acquire all the permissions to act.
In other cases, the use of force against insurgents may be blocked if they lower their guns, only to have those insurgents return later to attack.
Also, ISAF troops cannot engage insurgents if they are leaving an area where an IED has been planted. In one case, insurgents planting an IED had detected the presence of U.S. forces and immediately began leaving the area, tossing evidence of their preparations along the way. U.S. forces could not fire on them.
The ROEs in some cases have gone beyond limiting ISAF troops in their operations. In one case, ROE restrictions were in effect when four U.S. Marines twice pleaded by radio for artillery support in combat action in Kunar Province in Afghanistan – and twice they were refused, before they were killed.
You won't believe how politics handcuff troops in Afghanistan
Posted: December 13, 2009
7:26 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – New military rules of engagement ostensibly to protect Afghan civilians are putting the lives of U.S. forces in jeopardy, claim Army and Marine sources, as the Taliban learns to game plan based the rules' imposed limits.
The rules of engagement, or ROEs, apply to all coalition forces of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Their enactment is in response to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's complaints over mounting civilian deaths apparently occurring in firefights.
Despite the fact that the newly arrived U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, imposed the more restrictive ROEs to minimize the killing of innocent civilians, however, the Taliban is well aware of them and has its own forces acting in ways to counteract them.
The impact of new restrictions has created increasing frustration and concern among U.S. Army and Marine Corps troops who now are compelled to follow these rules despite the danger of letting the Taliban live to fight again another day.
Critics see the new ROEs being more oriented toward defensive rather than offensive operations, as evidenced by recent charges of murder against two U.S. Army snipers because they had targeted a Taliban commander who reportedly wasn't holding a weapon.
The actual ROEs are said to be classified U.S. and NATO secrets, but based on individual soldier those restrictions include the following:
- 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.
To get permission to go after him, U.S. troops had to get 11 separate Afghan, U.S. and international forces' approval to the plan. The approval, however, did not come until well into the next day. By then, the Taliban commander had moved on, to the consternation of the villagers who had provided the tip. Observers have claimed that it can take some 96 hours to acquire all the permissions to act.
In other cases, the use of force against insurgents may be blocked if they lower their guns, only to have those insurgents return later to attack.
Also, ISAF troops cannot engage insurgents if they are leaving an area where an IED has been planted. In one case, insurgents planting an IED had detected the presence of U.S. forces and immediately began leaving the area, tossing evidence of their preparations along the way. U.S. forces could not fire on them.
The ROEs in some cases have gone beyond limiting ISAF troops in their operations. In one case, ROE restrictions were in effect when four U.S. Marines twice pleaded by radio for artillery support in combat action in Kunar Province in Afghanistan – and twice they were refused, before they were killed.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
"What are we to make of all these flip-flops?
Iraq was never lost and Afghanistan was never quite the easy good war. Those in the media too often pile on and follow the polls rather than offer independent analysis. Campaign rhetoric and politics are one thing - the responsibility of governance is quite another.
And when wars break out, no one ever quite knows how things will finally end up."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/17/our_flip-flopping_wars_99586.html
Iraq was never lost and Afghanistan was never quite the easy good war. Those in the media too often pile on and follow the polls rather than offer independent analysis. Campaign rhetoric and politics are one thing - the responsibility of governance is quite another.
And when wars break out, no one ever quite knows how things will finally end up."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/17/our_flip-flopping_wars_99586.html
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Here's an interesting piece on our economy which discusses where in the economy an actual employment boom is taking place and the longterm effects of what is called the military-industrial complex has on the economy and the nation as a whole with these longterm growth prospects.
The first part of the piece does show the writer's bias in regards to foreign policy but then the writer delves into the economic numbers. If one has a bias towards fiscal responsible beliefs as I do, then one must ask, if it's true to remove assets from society's private sector to the public sector for public good projects and in each case one can also easily argue that these reallocations of resources go to distort the true economic market, then why is it not equally true in the case of warfare?
IMO this is at the heart of the writer's point which goes beyond any bias on war either way. From an economics standpoint, what are the true ramifications longterm and from an economic question, is it worth it and are there more cost effective means from a true fiscal viewpoint for the ultimate end of a secure and safe society?
In a role of expanding the current "war on terror" we are entering a 3rd (if not 4th when you consider Pakistan alone) in Yemen and the larger question is the means to pay for it all while allowing resources to remain in the private sector to further support a struggling recovery. And no, I'm not ignoring the many other areas in which gov't is stripping resources from the private economy and into the public domain for what really amounts to vote getting projects which both sides do equally well.
Since the 1850's, there has been no real serious true reduction in the national debt as per TreasuryDirect except for a couple of years in the 1950's when a few years saw very small drops in the midst of a boom cycle mostly brought on by the fact that most means of production in both Europe and Asia had been destroyed by war leaving America alone to fill global needs for the next 20 or so years until other regions emerged from it's ruins to begin to challenge back. We continue to use debt as a means of financing gov't interventions and at what point does the sustainability of this approach run out and the economic calamity follow?
History is ripe with large scale states crumbling economically while trying to defend it's geographic non-homeland interests against small, sometimes very small scale opponents who defeat the large states via economic ruin from within, not by physical destruction of an attack. The USSR being a perfect example in our most recent time and like Russia we now find ourselves trapped in the graveyard of empires.
When the credit line runs out and is closed, who among us would then support a nationalization of the entire economy for the express purpose of defending the State's interests abroad under the belief (real or phantom) of an external threat?
The State's purpose first and foremost is to survive and the illusion of freedom is only such now because it serves the State's ends of survival at this time. The moment freedom and democratic processes no longer serve as a help but rather as a hurt, the mask will come off for good.
I wonder why so many were twisting in their seats when Congressman Jack Brooks asked the all important question of one Ollie North?
BTW: For those who want to scream at Obama and Janet Naipolitano for the FEMA camps, then you need to also scream at the very people who put them in place for Obama and Naipolitano to use in the first place! Ironic is it not that so many of those folks then are your heros today. Seems some people need a serious clarification session with a mirror!
The first part of the piece does show the writer's bias in regards to foreign policy but then the writer delves into the economic numbers. If one has a bias towards fiscal responsible beliefs as I do, then one must ask, if it's true to remove assets from society's private sector to the public sector for public good projects and in each case one can also easily argue that these reallocations of resources go to distort the true economic market, then why is it not equally true in the case of warfare?
IMO this is at the heart of the writer's point which goes beyond any bias on war either way. From an economics standpoint, what are the true ramifications longterm and from an economic question, is it worth it and are there more cost effective means from a true fiscal viewpoint for the ultimate end of a secure and safe society?
In a role of expanding the current "war on terror" we are entering a 3rd (if not 4th when you consider Pakistan alone) in Yemen and the larger question is the means to pay for it all while allowing resources to remain in the private sector to further support a struggling recovery. And no, I'm not ignoring the many other areas in which gov't is stripping resources from the private economy and into the public domain for what really amounts to vote getting projects which both sides do equally well.
Since the 1850's, there has been no real serious true reduction in the national debt as per TreasuryDirect except for a couple of years in the 1950's when a few years saw very small drops in the midst of a boom cycle mostly brought on by the fact that most means of production in both Europe and Asia had been destroyed by war leaving America alone to fill global needs for the next 20 or so years until other regions emerged from it's ruins to begin to challenge back. We continue to use debt as a means of financing gov't interventions and at what point does the sustainability of this approach run out and the economic calamity follow?
History is ripe with large scale states crumbling economically while trying to defend it's geographic non-homeland interests against small, sometimes very small scale opponents who defeat the large states via economic ruin from within, not by physical destruction of an attack. The USSR being a perfect example in our most recent time and like Russia we now find ourselves trapped in the graveyard of empires.
When the credit line runs out and is closed, who among us would then support a nationalization of the entire economy for the express purpose of defending the State's interests abroad under the belief (real or phantom) of an external threat?
The State's purpose first and foremost is to survive and the illusion of freedom is only such now because it serves the State's ends of survival at this time. The moment freedom and democratic processes no longer serve as a help but rather as a hurt, the mask will come off for good.
I wonder why so many were twisting in their seats when Congressman Jack Brooks asked the all important question of one Ollie North?
BTW: For those who want to scream at Obama and Janet Naipolitano for the FEMA camps, then you need to also scream at the very people who put them in place for Obama and Naipolitano to use in the first place! Ironic is it not that so many of those folks then are your heros today. Seems some people need a serious clarification session with a mirror!
tieguy
Banned
the problem is he is speaking to a group that is out of power and out of favor.
I think conservatives in general have always been strong in supporting our troops and our country. The support for the concept of war has not been as strong.
At this point Iraq is a victory and the country on its way to being a beacon of democracy.
Afghanistan is now the problem and coincidentally is also the least debated of the two wars.
moreluck
golden ticket member
moreluck
golden ticket member
The fact that they say they want the soldiers "tried & punished" assumes guilt. That's backward from the way we view it.
Reuters) – Senior Afghan clerics said on Friday the burning of Korans at a NATO base last month was an “evil act” that must be punished, a demand that could deepen widespread public anger over the incident.
“The council strongly condemns this crime and inhumane, savage act by American troops by desecrating holy Korans,” members of a council of clerics said after meeting President Hamid Karzai, according to a statement issued by his office.
“The council emphasized that the apology for this evil act can never be accepted. Those who committed this crime must be publicly tried and punished.”
Despite the apology from U.S. President Barack Obama, the desecration of the Korans at Bagram air base ignited a wave of anti-Western fury across the country. Muslims consider the Koran the literal word of God and treat each book with deep reverence.
Reuters) – Senior Afghan clerics said on Friday the burning of Korans at a NATO base last month was an “evil act” that must be punished, a demand that could deepen widespread public anger over the incident.
“The council strongly condemns this crime and inhumane, savage act by American troops by desecrating holy Korans,” members of a council of clerics said after meeting President Hamid Karzai, according to a statement issued by his office.
“The council emphasized that the apology for this evil act can never be accepted. Those who committed this crime must be publicly tried and punished.”
Despite the apology from U.S. President Barack Obama, the desecration of the Korans at Bagram air base ignited a wave of anti-Western fury across the country. Muslims consider the Koran the literal word of God and treat each book with deep reverence.
moreluck
golden ticket member
"Accidental" and "Inadvertantly" does not constitute religious persecution. I wish we'd just get out of there and let them chop off heads 'til the pigs come home!! No more funding. Leave them alone to wallow in their 7th century lives.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Maybe he'd like to throw the soldiers to Karzai to be beheaded !!!!!
Official: Five U.S. Troops Will Likely Face Disciplinary Review Over Koran Burning…
Official: Five U.S. Troops Will Likely Face Disciplinary Review Over Koran Burning…
wkmac
Well-Known Member
You could do that but then what's your answer in the case of Bush and Obama? You don't think it's only the soldiers as guilty do you? If yes, then you must believe the pieces on any given chessboard just move about all by themselves!
moreluck
golden ticket member
| Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 12:48 pm |
[h=2]Day After Blaming NATO For Wave Of Haqqani Network Attacks In Kabul, Karzai Demands “At Least $2 Billion” A Year In U.S. Aid After Military Withdrawal…[/h]
[h=2]Day After Blaming NATO For Wave Of Haqqani Network Attacks In Kabul, Karzai Demands “At Least $2 Billion” A Year In U.S. Aid After Military Withdrawal…[/h]
moreluck
golden ticket member
Because negotiating with terrorists is accepted U.S. practice ????
Report: Obama Offers To Release 5 Taliban Commanders Held At Gitmo To Revive Peace Talks…
He’s just itching to surrender.
Report: Obama Offers To Release 5 Taliban Commanders Held At Gitmo To Revive Peace Talks…
He’s just itching to surrender.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Three U.S. Marines killed by rogue Afghan just hours after traitor police commander gunned down three American special force soldiers
Three U.S. Marines have been shot dead by an Afghan worker on a military base in southern Afghanistan, in a deadly 24 hours during which six American soldiers were killed in rogue attacks.
Three U.S. Marines have been shot dead by an Afghan worker on a military base in southern Afghanistan, in a deadly 24 hours during which six American soldiers were killed in rogue attacks.
