U.S. General
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Re: U'S. General
But the bigger problem with McChrystal’s leadership has always been the general’s devotion to unreasonably restrictive rules of engagement that are resulting in the unnecessary deaths of American and coalition forces. We have had many, many accounts of the rules endangering Americans, and the Rolling Stone article provides more evidence. In the story, a soldier at Combat Outpost JFM who had earlier met with McChrystal was killed in a house that American officers had asked permission to destroy. From the article:
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...tals-real-offense-96873364.html#ixzz0rajACSLa
But the bigger problem with McChrystal’s leadership has always been the general’s devotion to unreasonably restrictive rules of engagement that are resulting in the unnecessary deaths of American and coalition forces. We have had many, many accounts of the rules endangering Americans, and the Rolling Stone article provides more evidence. In the story, a soldier at Combat Outpost JFM who had earlier met with McChrystal was killed in a house that American officers had asked permission to destroy. From the article:
The night before the general is scheduled to visit Sgt. Arroyo’s platoon for the memorial, I arrive at Combat Outpost JFM to speak with the soldiers he had gone on patrol with. JFM is a small encampment, ringed by high blast walls and guard towers. Almost all of the soldiers here have been on repeated combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen some of the worst fighting of both wars. But they are especially angered by Ingram’s death. His commanders had repeatedly requested permission to tear down the house where Ingram was killed, noting that it was often used as a combat position by the Taliban. But due to McChrystal’s new restrictions to avoid upsetting civilians, the request had been denied. “These were abandoned houses,” fumes Staff Sgt. Kennith Hicks. “Nobody was coming back to live in them.”
One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any friend–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch. “We should just drop a friend–king bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?”
One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any friend–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch. “We should just drop a friend–king bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?”
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...tals-real-offense-96873364.html#ixzz0rajACSLa
DS
Fenderbender
ups1990
Well-Known Member
On the one hand, The General, must never question his Commander in Chief. The military has been a strong advocate and adheres strictly to a chain of command policy. If, an undersecretary to the general would defy this chain of command, you bet he would have his neck. On the flip side, I applaud the General for trying to get his point across even if it means, his firing. The rank and file military members on the ground, feel that this administration is telling them to fight with one hand tied behind them. The rules of engagement is hampering their ability to fight and beat the enemy.
Personally, my view of my commander would greatly increase, if he went to bat for us, even if it meant getting fired. Man, our center manager's know that we too our being hampered with, cutting of routes and the late start times and yet they do nothing about it.
Personally, my view of my commander would greatly increase, if he went to bat for us, even if it meant getting fired. Man, our center manager's know that we too our being hampered with, cutting of routes and the late start times and yet they do nothing about it.
DS
Fenderbender
good analogy
It does not seem to me from reading the various articles that he said much of any of the bad things, his staff did. Yes he should be in command of his staff, but I hope he resigns before Nobama gets to flex his muscle firing a well respected military guy. Free speech is only Ok if its in Nobamas favor. Yes a general should not speak against his commander in chief. But he seems to be pretty detached from the actual job of being commander anyway, unless it involves a ball. But if hes gone, he can sing like a bird, and say exactly what it was to work for the imbecile.
Then soon we can get rid of this biggest mistake ever made, and get on with being the greatest country in the world.
Then soon we can get rid of this biggest mistake ever made, and get on with being the greatest country in the world.
Yes I have heard that...................
moreluck
golden ticket member
klein
Für Meno :)
Similar threads
