Rules of Engagement-are we unnecessarily putting our troops in harm's way

General David Petraeus today said he?s concerned the U.S. military?s rules of engagement in Afghanistan are too restrictive and putting American forces at risk.

Petraeus: U.S. May Ease Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan - Bloomberg

It is bad enough to be fighting a war but to have this restriction must give the enemy an advantage our
wonderful countrymen and women do not deserve.

I agree with you, Andy. Seems like a no-brainer. But let's not stop there at the 5,000 foot view- let's look at things from 50,000 feet up. Tell me what the mission is? What are the objectives? What constitutes victory?

I will only support a draft if/when our leaders only authorize wars to defend America from tangible enemies. Wars against abstract concepts like terror don't count.

I agree with you, Andy. Seems like a no-brainer. But let's not stop there at the 5,000 foot view- let's look at things from 50,000 feet up. Tell me what the mission is? What are the objectives? What constitutes victory?

I will only support a draft if/when our leaders only authorize wars to defend America from tangible enemies. Wars against abstract concepts like terror don't count.

You are 100% on the mark but you forgot one thing: No American troops for nation building. We use our blood and treasure to serve our national interests and nothing more.

I guess the left-handed blessing of people hating Obama so much is that they are FINALLY willing to see that it is possible to support the troops, and oppose the war.

It's also nice to do so and not be accused of "emboldening the terrorists".

General David Petraeus today said he?s concerned the U.S. military?s rules of engagement in Afghanistan are too restrictive and putting American forces at risk.

Petraeus: U.S. May Ease Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan - Bloomberg

It is bad enough to be fighting a war but to have this restriction must give the enemy an advantage our
wonderful countrymen and women do not deserve.

Don't get your hopes up. More recent articles like "Rules Of Engagement To Be "Clarified," Not Changed" indicate little to no change to the ROE.

Despite the complaints of some troops in Afghanistan that warfighting rules restrict their ability to defend themselves, the new commanding U.S. general will not be changing the Rules of Engagement, but officials say he will soon clarify actions soldiers may take to clear up confusion and alleviate frustration in the field.

For those ROE to work, we need significantly more feet-on-the-ground in Afghanistan. If McCrystal had gotten the troops he asked for and felt that he had a chance to win, he wouldn't have pulled the Rolling Stone stunt that he did.

Let's see, we lost about 5,000 precious lives on Sept 11, 2001. Then we went to war loosing even more than that, in hopes of seeking justice for the 5,000. Somewhere that math doesn't add up in my mind.

We Americans learn much from history, don't we? Vietnam -- what a success! Afghanistan will be even worse, in my opinion. We armed Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians, and once they fought off the Russians, they turned our guns on us. (reminds me of the French Indian War) Now, we are fighting them again, while trying to rebuild their country, and our own country suffers economically. America is so busy telling other people how to be, that we are not being who we need to be.

Why? Why are we fighting Iraq and Afghanistan? Is it money? Is it oil? I'm not sure, but I do know that the government contractors who contribute heavily to political campaigns, reap HUGE rewards to rebuild the places we destroy. That makes great sense, doesn't it? If we are going to go into debt at this extreme, it sure would be great if we spent it on our own infrastructure. Obama had those campaign promises pulling out all troops. He failed, though I never believe anything I hear in a campaign.

I, too, don't like that our troops fight with hands tied. At the same time, I don't want them needlessly killing bystanding civilians. War isn't pretty. Maybe what we need instead of a draft is to require every politician to have their sons and daughters join the military. I have a vivid memory of some graffitti that hit me hard many years ago, "War is good business. Invest your son." If our politicians family was on the line, maybe the money wouldn't look so inviting.

Andy, thanks for serving for our country!

.
great post Murray


.

Let's see, we lost about 5,000 precious lives on Sept 11, 2001. Then we went to war loosing even more than that, in hopes of seeking justice for the 5,000. Somewhere that math doesn't add up in my mind.

We Americans learn much from history, don't we? Vietnam -- what a success! Afghanistan will be even worse, in my opinion. We armed Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians, and once they fought off the Russians, they turned our guns on us. (reminds me of the French Indian War) Now, we are fighting them again, while trying to rebuild their country, and our own country suffers economically. America is so busy telling other people how to be, that we are not being who we need to be.

Why? Why are we fighting Iraq and Afghanistan? Is it money? Is it oil? I'm not sure, but I do know that the government contractors who contribute heavily to political campaigns, reap HUGE rewards to rebuild the places we destroy. That makes great sense, doesn't it? If we are going to go into debt at this extreme, it sure would be great if we spent it on our own infrastructure. Obama had those campaign promises pulling out all troops. He failed, though I never believe anything I hear in a campaign.

I, too, don't like that our troops fight with hands tied. At the same time, I don't want them needlessly killing bystanding civilians. War isn't pretty. Maybe what we need instead of a draft is to require every politician to have their sons and daughters join the military. I have a vivid memory of some graffitti that hit me hard many years ago, "War is good business. Invest your son." If our politicians family was on the line, maybe the money wouldn't look so inviting.

Andy, thanks for serving for our country!

I think that we had a justifiable reason to go into Afghanistan and hit them pretty hard. If we had focused on the job and had a narrowly defined mission we could have done it and left.

Instead, we made the disastrous decision to let Afghanistan simmer and to go into Iraq. That made its a double tragedy. I think our invasion of Iraq is the most shameful international action our country has ever undertaken.

In the meantime Afghanistan has turned into a colossal mess that can't really be easily fixed. We ought to just declare victory, arm the warlords and leave.

The decision to invade Iraq was the single biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States. We lost all chance of having "sucess" in Afghanistan because of the vast amount of resources that went into that war. Murray opened a more obvious reason why we are in two never-ending wars: money. Eisenhower (a war hero) warned this country about the threat of the military-industrial complex about a half a century ago. I saw a chart a few days ago and it said the US produces 43% of the world's arms. The next closest producer was 8%. Enough said.

The decision to invade Iraq was the single biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States.

The really sad thing is that Bush Sr. understood why we didn't want to go into Iraq.

Iraq /was/ the cork in the bottle that contained Iran and all of their big talk about WMD was mainly directed at Iran.

Bush Jr. screwed that all up,

Then we took the only guy who knew how to hold the country together and maintain that corking position and hung him.

A true Neocon, make the world safe for democracy disaster.

Andy, I agree with you 100% - frankly I would like us to just realize it's a war and let the troops open up a can of whiparse and win the damn thing.

Not saying we should ignore Geneva convention etc. but war is not full of manners and policy - it's ugly situations and I for one know and accept that collateral damage is a part of that - especially when fighting a guerrilla war.

Andy, I agree with you 100% - frankly I would like us to just realize it's a war and let the troops open up a can of whiparse and win the damn thing.

Not saying we should ignore Geneva convention etc. but war is not full of manners and policy - it's ugly situations and I for one know and accept that collateral damage is a part of that - especially when fighting a guerrilla war.

How can you open up a can of whooparse when the enemy looks just like the friendlies? Every time you kill an innocent, you create more militants. The whole dilemna is that we went in trying to fight an anti-terrorist war and now we are in the middle of an insurgency, in which trying to win the hearts and minds of the populace (in order to get adequate intelligence) is every bit as important as killing the bad guys. We need to get out, and put all our efforts into keeping Pakistan on our side.

Our troops are hamstrung and restricted, theirs are not. All I am saying is let them do their job and not think we can fight a war w/o some casualities.

"They" don't have troops.

If you blew up my sister with a Predator drone, do you think I would help you, or help the Taliban kill you. It's as simple as that.

Sorry, what do you want me to call the organized group of resistance fighters trained, financed, recruited, and armed by one group? :roll:

Sorry, what do you want me to call the organized group of resistance fighters trained, financed, recruited, and armed by one group? :roll:

I've always wondered about how the Taliban is supplied, with arms, as well as food, and other supplies. I suspect that a great deal of the population of Afghan supports the Taliban, either out of fear, or simply the fact that they view the Taliban as the lesser of two evils (the US armed forces occupying their country being the worse of the two evils). They (the general population) probably feel they can deal with the Taliban better than they can deal with the US Army. We already have a history of deserting them.

At minimum, 100 years of recent history demonstrates that the "powers" of England, Russia, and now America have been unsuccessful in attempts to tame/bend/remake/reform Afghanistan to their Will.

None of these 3 "powers" have proven victorious over these "simple-backward-savage" (yea right) people... not by any classic definition of the word or
"complex-advanced-civilized" (yea right) method.

How long will it take us to get over ourselves enough to let these people be? How long before we evolve enough to utterly and completely reframe/redefine the entire concept of "Victory"?

Rewriting or modifying long outdated "rules of engagement" is like slapping fresh bandaids on a dead thing in hopes of bringing it back to life.

I submit: Time to throw the baby out with the bathwater. DIS-engage.

I know about 10% of them are Taliban and the rest are locals who have joined them for personal reasons - like a dead relative.

They plan to wait us out (the US has the watches, the Taliban have the time) - and in the meantime those who have the means are preparing to leave so they do not have to live under a new Taliban regime.

I know about 10% of them are Taliban and the rest are locals who have joined them for personal reasons - like a dead relative.

They plan to wait us out (the US has the watches, the Taliban have the time) - and in the meantime those who have the means are preparing to leave so they do not have to live under a new Taliban regime.

Yep. Every species has to make their own change-or-adapt decisions for survival (or not). Sharks & cockroaches followed one path... do-do birds another.

I've always wondered about how the Taliban is supplied, with arms, as well as food, and other supplies. I suspect that a great deal of the population of Afghan supports the Taliban, either out of fear, or simply the fact that they view the Taliban as the lesser of two evils (the US armed forces occupying their country being the worse of the two evils). They (the general population) probably feel they can deal with the Taliban better than they can deal with the US Army. We already have a history of deserting them.

Have you ever seen Charlie Wilson's war?
My guess is that it is just like that except we are playing the part of the Soviets and Islamic states are playing the part of the US helping to defeat the evil superpower occupiers.

[QUOTE=DuneAHH;

Rewriting or modifying long outdated "rules of engagement" is like slapping fresh bandaids on a dead thing in hopes of bringing it back to life.
Somehow, either you don't get it or I am not making myself clear. American lives are being lost because our combatants cannot respond as they have been trained to respond. Outdated "rules of engagement" left in place uselessly kill our troops regardless of whether they are volunteers or not. They realize when they sign up they may be giving up their lives but they are under the impression they will be given a fighting chance to preserve them. Whether we stay or leave, our fighting men deserve the support, when in armed conflict, they are entitled to receive. Part of the problem in this nation right now is, "It doesn't affect me so let someone else do it." And yes, at my stage of life I am guilty of such an attitude. That was not always the case, however, and I am saddened and ashamed to see it so prevalent in so many younger than me.

I've always wondered about how the Taliban is supplied, with arms, as well as food, and other supplies. I suspect that a great deal of the population of Afghan supports the Taliban, either out of fear, or simply the fact that they view the Taliban as the lesser of two evils (the US armed forces occupying their country being the worse of the two evils). They (the general population) probably feel they can deal with the Taliban better than they can deal with the US Army. We already have a history of deserting them.

I think it is far more likely that the Taliban's funds are coming from a mix of drug money and funds from Saudi. (Iran is a possibility too, but I'd think its more likely to be Saudi money.)

The locals don't have the money to help them with arms or medical supplies.

Somehow, either you don't get it or I am not making myself clear. American lives are being lost because our combatants cannot respond as they have been trained to respond. Outdated "rules of engagement" left in place uselessly kill our troops regardless of whether they are volunteers or not. They realize when they sign up they may be giving up their lives but they are under the impression they will be given a fighting chance to preserve them. Whether we stay or leave, our fighting men deserve the support, when in armed conflict, they are entitled to receive. Part of the problem in this nation right now is, "It doesn't affect me so let someone else do it." And yes, at my stage of life I am guilty of such an attitude. That was not always the case, however, and I am saddened and ashamed to see it so prevalent in so many younger than me.

I believe DuneAHH is saying that the absurdity is the fact that we are engaged in these protracted stalemates in the first place, never mind the rules of engagement. Well, if she's not saying that, then I am. Don't get me wrong, after 9/11 I could see the wisdom of bombing the crap out of parts of Afghanistan and taking out the Taliban. Then we should have gotten out, regrouped, and beefed up domestic security (as we did). I think the problem is that many, many Americans Republican and Democrat wanted us to "run the table" so to speak militarily. I think they were motivated by anger, fear, and the exhiliration that some people get from decimating a society different from their own.

I can't speak for everyone, but I hate the Taliban and what they do. It isn't a military industrial complex or "we win" issue, it's a matter of what is good for the people of Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the world.

They destroy history (I'm still pissed about the Buddhas) and knowledge, they breed hatred, and they subjugate more than 50% of a country's population.