Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan...blueprint for failure.

• majorspark

  

  The ROE in Afghanistan are currently a joke. They are getting soldiers unnecessarily killed, strengthening the enemy, and demoralizing the troops. The ROE have got to change DRASTICALLY and immediately. There is no excuse for delay.
  
  Gen. David Petraeus when he took command told congress that he would revise the ROE. That was months ago. Even he is caught in the tar of politics.
  
  I am one that recognizes the consequences of the US withdrawing from the region and would prefer that we get the job done right, but if this is how our leaders think the job gets done, we need to get the hell out now.
  
  We had the political capital to go into Afghanistan and get the job done right. Our leaders lacked the testicular fortitude even then. We had the power when this war started to have every Afghan, Taliban and those in Waziristan, pissing down their legs and begging for mercy inside of a few years. It would have been ugly for a few years but it would be over.
  
  Instead our political leaders chose to try and fight a cleaner war (oxymoron). Yes we could be the nice warriors. Instead our enemies exploit our weakness. We have allowed a corrupt government to form in Afghanistan. One that the locals despise.
  
  Our leaders need to get off their asses and make some tough decisions and now.
  
  I cited two articles. You can read them in full but here are some excerpts.
  

  "If they use rockets to hit the [forward operating base] we can't shoot back because they were within 500 meters of the village. If they shoot at us and drop their weapon in the process we can't shoot back," said Spc. Charles Brooks, 26, a U.S. Army medic with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, in Zabul province.
  
  Word had come down the morning Brooks spoke to this reporter that watch towers surrounding the base were going to be dismantled because Afghan village elders, some sympathetic to the Taliban, complained they were invading their village privacy. "We have to take down our towers because it offends them and now the Taliban can set up mortars and we can't see them," Brooks added, with disgust

  What complete fool came up with this??? They ought to hall his ass out to the battlefield give him a weapon (if he is man enough to carry one) and see if he feels the immediate need to fire back. Someone needs to save our kids from the hands of these fools. I'll put my life on the line, as would my young sons who are soon to reach fighting age, but not under these rules.
  

  "I don't think the military leaders, president or anybody really cares about what we're going through," said Spc. Matthew "Silver" Fuhrken, 25, from Watertown, N.Y. "I'm sick of people trying to cover up what's really going on over here. They won't let us do our job. I don't care if they try to kick me out for what I'm saying -- war is war and this is no war. I don't know what this is."

  I'm with you brother. I don't know what this is either. Its definitely no path to victory.
  

  To the soldiers and Marines risking their lives in Afghanistan, restrictions on their ability to aggressively attack the Taliban have led to another enormous frustration stalking morale: the fear that the Karzai government, with the prodding of the administration of President Obama, will negotiate a peace with the Taliban that wastes all the sacrifices by the U.S. here. Those fears intensified when news reached the enlisted ranks that the Karzai government, with the backing of senior Obama officials, was entering a new round of negotiations with the Taliban.
  
  "If we walk away, cut a deal with the Taliban, desert the people who needed us most, then this war was pointless," said Pvt. Jeffrey Ward, with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, who is stationed at Forward Operating Base Bullard in southern Afghanistan.
  
  "Everyone dies for their own reasons but it's sad to think that our friends, the troops, have given their lives for something we're not going to see through."
  
  Other soldiers agreed. They said they feared few officials in the Pentagon understand the reality on the ground.

  I hope we can get some leaders in place that have the balls to finish this.
  
  http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Troops-chafe-at-restrictive-rules-of-engagement_-talks-with-Taliban-1226055-105202284.html
  http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/66392.html
• believer

  

  The Pentagon and the BHO Administration must have resurrected the Vietnam playbook.
  
  Either we let the soldiers and Marines do their jobs or get them the hell out of there. This is bullshit.
• iclfan2

  

  ""If they use rockets to hit the [forward operating base] we can't shoot back because they were within 500 meters of the village. If they shoot at us and drop their weapon in the process we can't shoot back," said Spc. Charles Brooks, 26, a U.S. Army medic with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, in Zabul province.
  
  Word had come down the morning Brooks spoke to this reporter that watch towers surrounding the base were going to be dismantled because Afghan village elders, some sympathetic to the Taliban, complained they were invading their village privacy. "We have to take down our towers because it offends them and now the Taliban can set up mortars and we can't see them," Brooks added, with disgust"
  
  This is absurd. It is WAR, not a game of tag in the back yard. This is what bleeding hearts get done.
• Belly35

  

  There is only a few ROE in my book anything else let the Politician, Congress, Public Servant, Government asshole and chick shit General face a fire fight or ambush with their ROE up there ass as the shit run down their leg but my guys will followed my ROE ..
  
  ROE:
  Shot to kill or be killed
  Attack without mercy or be killed without mercy
  Fire power or be over powered
  Fight like your life depended on it because it does…
  Shoot first and I will stand behind you and those beside you will stand with you..
  Follow those rules and I will get your ass home…
  
  War is not fucking rules …your playing with death ..
• Ty Webb

  

  Belly35;525590 wrote:There is only a few ROE in my book anything else let the Politician, Congress, Public Servant, Government asshole and chick shit General face a fire fight or ambush with their ROE up there ass as the shit run down their leg but my guys will followed my ROE ..
  
  ROE:
  Shot to kill or be killed
  Attack without mercy or be killed without mercy
  Fire power or be over powered
  Fight like your life depended on it because it does…
  Shoot first and I will stand behind you and those beside you will stand with you..
  Follow those rules and I will get your ass home…
  
  War is not fucking rules …your playing with death ..

  
  Never thought i would....but I 100% agree with Belly
• BGFalcons82

  

  Belly35;525590 wrote:There is only a few ROE in my book anything else let the Politician, Congress, Public Servant, Government asshole and chick shit General face a fire fight or ambush with their ROE up there ass as the shit run down their leg but my guys will followed my ROE ..
  
  ROE:
  Shot to kill or be killed
  Attack without mercy or be killed without mercy
  Fire power or be over powered
  Fight like your life depended on it because it does…
  Shoot first and I will stand behind you and those beside you will stand with you..
  Follow those rules and I will get your ass home…
  
  War is not fucking rules …your playing with death ..

  
  A+, Mr. Belly.....A fucking plus.
• Footwedge

  Yeah why have rules of engagement. Drop a dozen nukes on em and be done with it.
  
  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/15/what-the-numbers-say-about-progress-in-afghanistan/
• Mr. 300

  

  So nice to hear from our resident muslim........
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Ty Webb;525593 wrote:Never thought i would....but I 100% agree with Belly

  
  Holy flirking shnit!
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge;526631 wrote:Yeah why have rules of engagement. Drop a dozen nukes on em and be done with it.

  Come on Foot. No ones talking about nuking anyone. Take your straw man elsewhere. Just because one finds these ROE utterly ridiculous does not mean one favors the use of nuclear weapons.
  
  I read your link. One paragraph stood out to me.
  

  Still the daily headlines about troop deaths is staggering. 16 NATO troops have been killed in the last three days. The US has lost 386 troops so far this year.

  Instead of fighting an all out war, which is what should be a forgone conclusion when we chose to engage in it, we are now engaged in a political military conflict. A watered down form of "war" that slowly bleeds a nation dry. In both blood and treasure.
  
  In the aforementioned paragraph above it noted headlines of "staggering" troop deaths over certain periods of time. In the context of all out war these numbers are not "staggering" over these periods of time. Don't get me wrong. One death is horrible. But if we choose to engage in war to win against the resolved enemies we knew we faced in Afghanistan, history has shown us that the price over these periods of time would be much greater in order to attain complete and total victory.
  
  To add a little context to staggering troop deaths:
  
  Battle of Okinawa - April 1, 1945 – June 22, 1945 (12,500 Killed)
  Battle of Iwo Jima - February 19 – March 26 , 1945 (6,800 Killed)
  Battle of the Bulge - December 16, 1944 – January 25, 1945 (19,000 Killed)
• believer

  

  majorspark;527043 wrote:In the aforementioned paragraph above it noted headlines of "staggering" troop deaths over certain periods of time. In the context of all out war these numbers are not "staggering" over these periods of time. Don't get me wrong. One death is horrible. But if we choose to engage in war to win against the resolved enemies we knew we faced in Afghanistan, history has shown us that the price over these periods of time would be much greater in order to attain complete and total victory.
  
  To add a little context to staggering troop deaths:
  
  Battle of Okinawa - April 1, 1945 – June 22, 1945 (12,500 Killed)
  Battle of Iwo Jima - February 19 – March 26 , 1945 (6,800 Killed)
  Battle of the Bulge - December 16, 1944 – January 25, 1945 (19,000 Killed)

  Outstanding and as usual spot on.
  
  The leftist media keeps pounding us about the "mounting troop losses." In comparison to other wars, American loss of life in the war on terror is actually"staggeringly" minimal. The loss of one life in battle is a tragedy, but the "mainstream" media needs to stop pretending that these numbers are "staggering." It definitely needs to stop puffing up the loss numbers by slyly tossing in the entire NATO figure.
  
  But back on topic...either the moronic twits in DC need to let the military do its job, or they need to withdraw. Pick your poison. War is a dirty business. Playing nice in the Afghan sandbox is a recipe for disaster. It makes us appear weak to the insurgents and puts our troops in a far more precarious situation than it needs to be.
  
  Did we not learn any lessons in southeast Asia???
• Footwedge

  Mr. 300;526649 wrote:So nice to hear from our resident muslim........

  
  I the tenth time...I am not a Muslim. And it's irrelevant....completely.
• Footwedge

  Spark...how in the world can you compare and contrast WWII with this charade in Afg/Iraq?Pakistan? And no, you didn't suggest nuclear bombs. But why not? What exactly defines "rules of engagement" anyhow? Isn't the purpose of "rules of engagement" to minimize civilian casualties? Well isn't it?
  
  I want to see where you and the others here are drawing the line.
  
  This GWOT is a fuckin joke. We are winning absolutely nothing. Global terrorist events are higher over the past 9 years then before 9-11. That is a fact. Even the CIA has admitted as much.
  
  Sparky...you want to fight these wars the "right way"?, then share your brilliance with the audience here on how to do it.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge;527826 wrote:Spark...how in the world can you compare and contrast WWII with this charade in Afg/Iraq?Pakistan?

  I am not directly comparing Afghanistan/Iraq/Pakistan with WWII. I am contextually comparing the author of the article you provided statement that the casualties in Afghanistan are "staggering". As bad as it may sound the truth is they are not "staggering". Not in comparison to our nations past wars.
  
  No doubt of all our nations wars, the conflict in Afghanistan is unfortunately shaping up to compare more closely with the war in Vietnam. A war that over roughly the same number of years took the lives of nearly 60,000.
  

  Footwedge;527826 wrote:And no, you didn't suggest nuclear bombs. But why not? What exactly defines "rules of engagement" anyhow? Isn't the purpose of "rules of engagement" to minimize civilian casualties? Well isn't it?

  Yes the purpose of ROE are to limit civilian casualties. ROE however should never limit us from achieving total victory. Come on Foot even you can admit the the ROE that the soldiers stated in the article I cited above are utterly ridiculous, politically motivated, and will not give us a chance in hell for total victory.
  

  Footwedge;527826 wrote:This GWOT is a fuckin joke. We are winning absolutely nothing. Global terrorist events are higher over the past 9 years then before 9-11. That is a fact. Even the CIA has admitted as much.

  You cite nothing to back up your claim. Assuming it is accurate (which I don't doubt) I do know this fact for sure, not one major terrorist attack has occurred on US soil since 9-11. I'll bet the CIA admits to this as well.
  

  Footwedge;527826 wrote:Sparky...you want to fight these wars the "right way"?, then share your brilliance with the audience here on how to do it.

  I don't know about brilliance, but I will share my opinion. I see it like this. No foreign power in the history of our nation has ever been able to bring such destruction and loss of life to our homeland. Neither Japan nor Germany were ever able to accomplish such a feat. NYC and DC two of the many great cities of our great nation, were attacked resulting in nearly 3,000 deaths and with great damage inflicted to our civilian infrastructure in NYC.
  
  It was soon made clear as to who perpetrated these attacks and what nation harbored those responsible. Our nation demanded that the governing authorities arrest and turn over the guilty parties. They refused. Thus making them compliant in the act of war purportrated against our nation by powers existing within their borders and protected by their authority as a nation state.
  
  Make it perfectly clear to the Afghan government, ruled by the Taliban, that non-compliance with our demands would result in war between our nations and the utter destruction of their nation and the over through of their government.
  
  Our president should have asked congress for a formal declaration of war against Afghanistan. Stating that our nation petitioned the Afghan government to arrest and turn over those responsible for the attacks against our nation on 9/11 and our petition was refused. Therefore a state of war had existed between our nations and should be formally declared as such by congress. Congress would have no doubt declared it and thus given our President solid apolitical authority to wage total war to achieve the unconditional defeat of the regime in Afghanistan.
  
  Once the full constitutional backing of our government by the people to wage war with goals spelled out in the declaration of war, we unleash hell. We unleash our troops to do what they are trained to do. Kill and destroy until the enemy submits. No nation or group of guerrilla fighters can wage war without the support of the civilian population. I hate to say it but the civilians supporting the fighters will to continue to support them must be broken as well. That is reality. That is war. That is one one of the reasons why war is such a terrible thing.
• believer

  

  Footwedge;527826 wrote:Spark...how in the world can you compare and contrast WWII with this charade in Afg/Iraq?Pakistan?

  C'mon Footwedge. Majorspark was clearly comparing war casualties...not the moral reasons for fighting the wars.
  

  Footwedge;527826 wrote:Sparky...you want to fight these wars the "right way"?, then share your brilliance with the audience here on how to do it.

  I sense your frustration. I defend your right to disagree with the WOT and perfectly understand your anger with it, but is it really necessary to be condescending with your fellow Chatters simply because they may disagree with your assessment on how the war should be prosecuted?
• BGFalcons82

  

  majorspark;528344 wrote:Our president should have asked congress for a formal declaration of war against Afghanistan. Stating that our nation petitioned the Afghan government to arrest and turn over those responsible for the attacks against our nation on 9/11 and our petition was refused. Therefore a state of war had existed between our nations and should be formally declared as such by congress. Congress would have no doubt declared it and thus given our President solid apolitical authority to wage total war to achieve the unconditional defeat of the regime in Afghanistan.
  
  Once the full constitutional backing of our government by the people to wage war with goals spelled out in the declaration of war, we unleash hell. We unleash our troops to do what they are trained to do. Kill and destroy until the enemy submits. No nation or group of guerrilla fighters can wage war without the support of the civilian population. I hate to say it but the civilians supporting the fighters will to continue to support them must be broken as well. That is reality. That is war. That is one one of the reasons why war is such a terrible thing.

  
  Yes, Bush decided to be politically correct rather than be a leader and declare war on Afghanistan. War is not fun. War is not pretty. War is not played on PS3. War is hell. We either engage in war to win or we don't. Engaging in being politically correct and cooperating with the enemy leads to where we are. I never thought I'd write this....but we need to get the hell out of there if we aren't going to win.