"It's a scene that has been repeated too many times in recent U.S. conflicts and has cost far too many American soldiers' lives. We send our best and bravest off to fight the enemies of liberty while our politicians tie one hand behind the troops' back, essentially giving aid and comfort to the enemy. That aid and comfort, of course, are the Rules of Engagement (ROE) that define when, where and how our soldiers can fight and kill the enemy. The enemy has no such rules, which all too often leaves our troops unnecessarily exposed to enemy fire on the one hand, or exposed to prosecution by U.S. lawyers on the other, a choice that leads to uncertainty and, therefore, death on the battlefield.

Last week, when four U.S. Marines were killed in an ambush while training Afghan soldiers, the ROE were to blame. Eight Afghan troops and the Marine commander's Afghan interpreter also died in the ambush and the subsequent battle that took place in the village of Ganjgal, near the Pakistan border. The Marines came under heavy fire from jihadis hidden in the hills near the village, where women and children were helping to replenish the insurgents' ammunition. Citing the new ROE implemented by the Obama regime, designed to minimize Afghan civilian casualties, U.S. commanders repeatedly rejected calls from the Marines for artillery and air support aimed at the jihadis, who were dug into the slopes around the village but not in the village proper. The lack of air support led to a fierce firefight and directly contributed to the Marines' deaths. This is nothing short of criminal.

While minimizing civilian casualties is proper, we are at war, and defeating the enemy is priority one. War-fighting decisions must be made by the troops who are actually in battle, not by cynical, agenda-driven politicians safely ensconced in their posh DC offices."

It's absurd that this happened. I completely agree with you. We have become too scared about violating the nonexistent rights of terrorists and are too fearful for those who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. I do think we need to minimize civilian casualties, but it should not be at the risk of those brave men and women who are fighting to protect us.

But this isn't the only problem, there are so many more. The military in Afghanistan now has to hand over all terrorists they catch after like 48 hours, I believe it is, and the Afghani forces release most of them, so they can go back to attacking Afghanis and Americans. Then when terrorists are captured by CIA or FBI they are read miranda rights! Not their miranda rights cause they don't apply to them, but they get them! Then there's also the fact that our politicians would sooner listen to terrorists than their own military(Earlier this year Obama and Hillary listened to terrorists who said the military killed just civilians in an air strike and the military called that a lie). Then there's the CIA being investigated for doing what they did to protect us.

I just hope it doesn't get any worse for them.

Let's hear it for Obama-Wan! Preserving terrorist lives while costing our brothers' and sisters' lives!

It's a Catch-22

Follow ROE's and let the enemy take advantage of them, endangering the lives of American servicemen.

Disobey ROE and kill the enemy, protecting servicemen. But somebody will be on the ground to film the dead civilians to "prove" that the Americans are baby killers. Thus endangering the overall goal for the Middle East to throw off Islamist tyranny and terrorist sponsorship.

It's disgusting how these Islamists operate.

ROEs only work if BOTH sides agree to abide by them! Islamists have no concept of honor when it comes to we infidels, and the American loons have to wake up and see that!

Right you are FSW. We are damned on both sides. So honestly, what's the solution?

The best solution is to stop trying to please everybody and protect AMERICAN lives for once! The longer we drag this out, the more lives are going to be lost, American and otherwise! Scrap Obama's new ROEs, kick smurf, and then get our boys back home, thus reducing true casualties on BOTH sides!

I agree.

Let it be your family who is "mistakenly" killed or declared "collataral damage" and I bet your tune would change quick. It is my understanding that ROEs exist to ensure that, even at the expense of our own lives, we never deliberately take the life of a civilian noncombantant. I would rather let 10 Taliban live than kill a single innocent civilian.

War is an ugly, evil thing. But, just like having your gall bladder taken out, sometimes it is a necessity.

I highly recommend the movie Rules of Engagement with Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones.

My military advisor explained to us that "civilian" and non-combatant are not always the same.

Not all "civilians" are innocent civilians.

FOJ, we're talking a completely different set of rules and values here. Neither we, nor any other civilized army on the face of this earth uses women and children as human shields. Read the article. The cowards were DELIBERATELY having women and children reload their ammunition supplies, using our ROEs against us! The only way to save the lives of those women and children along with our own soldiers is either to avoid conflict altogether and surrender, OR to realize that civilian casualties may be a necessity of war in order to PREVENT our troops and countless OTHER civilians from being killed!

I don't like it. It's an ugly business... But what service are we doing ANYONE by allowing terrorists- religiously fervent, COWARDLY guerrillas- to continue to use human shields? How can we prevent the greatest loss of innocent lives and minimize the overall danger? Do Obama's ROEs really accomplish that?

I stand by what I said. Strutter - you may believe its uncalled for, but just look at GW's post. His statement flatly that "its not" (his family) is exactly what I'm talking about. Its so easy for people like us in the safety of our homeland to say "to hell with the civilians", but were it our own families who were being bombed or killed, we'd not be so quick to dismiss ROEs that seek to protect them. Soldiers accept the risk of fighting in a war; civilians haven't.

By the way, what are we still doing there anyway? No army has ever "won" in Afghanistan, but typical American arrogance says that surely we can win there. The lessons of Vietnam apparently have never been learned. Its time to start ending this and getting out of there. Were we making real progress, I'd be for continuing it. But I don't believe we are making good progress towards a victory.

Points:


1.

Quote:

By the way, what are we still doing there anyway?

You need to ask that question of Obama--Wan.

Me, STRUTTER, FSW, and others can't answer it. I bet Obama--Wan can.



2. I have nothing else to say......other than my first post. No point. The older I get......the less I talk/discuss/argue/disagree on message boards. No real point other than to hear my fingers making the keyboard go *clackity--clack--clack*.

_________________
"The 'farce' is strong with Sith Lord Obama-Wan." words of Scourge.

"Uh....You can believe me....Uh....because I never lie, and....Uh....Uh....I am always right." words of Sith Lord Obama-Wan.

Daddy likes it all, the DraíodóirDé likes it all