The Commander in Chief is Killing our Marines

[carpro]

After watching 60 minutes, there is no doubt Obama is killing our troops by handcuffing them with rules of engagement that have deadly consequences for our troops.

Obama has endorsed a counter-insurgency strategy that may or may not work , but is dangerous to the safety of our combat troops.

One thing is certain, this strategy requires more boots on the ground. He knew that when he endorsed it. While he plays political footsie with the anti war loons of his own party, our troops are dying in greater numbers because he won't make a decision on how many to send.

If he sends less than needed, he will condemn more of them to die unnecessarily with his rules of engagement.

 

[KenH]

We can't make Afghanistan into a governable nation. We need to pull our troops into the major cities, train the Afghans as best we can, and get pull our troops out. We have to technology to see if al Qaeda tries to come back in and set up any camps, and if they do we can destroy any such camp.

 

[OldRegular]

After watching 60 minutes, there is no doubt Obama is killing our troops by handcuffing them with rules of engagement that have deadly consequences for our troops.

Obama has endorsed a counter-insurgency strategy that may or may not work , but is dangerous to the safety of our combat troops.

One thing is certain, this strategy requires more boots on the ground. He knew that when he endorsed it. While he plays political footsie with the anti war loons of his own party, our troops are dying in greater numbers because he won't make a decision on how many to send.

If he sends less than needed, he will condemn more of them to die unnecessarily with his rules of engagement.

If the rules of engagement had been the same in WWII as they were in Iraq and are in Afghanistan we would have undoubtedly lost.

 

[Winman]

I saw that last night and was shocked. I did not know about these new rules of engagement imposed on them in the last six months I believe it said.

Several soldiers told of how stressful duty has now become for them with this new policy.

For anyone who did not see it, now our soldiers are told to wait a full 3 seconds before firing on the enemy. The first second you are supposed to ask "can I", the next two you are supposed to ask "should I". The idea is to have no civilian deaths whatsoever. Now our soldiers have been instructed to let the enemy escape if fighting them could mean even one civilian death. One officer said a common tactic of the enemy is to fire on our soldiers, and then quickly mix with the general population.

This policy is beyond stupid.

 

[KenH]

If the rules of engagement had been the same in WWII as they were in Iraq and are in Afghanistan we would have undoubtedly lost.

This is 2009, not 1944.

Civilized people do not as easily go along with the idea of killing civilians during battles as they did 65 years ago.

Like it or not, but that's a fact.

 

[Revmitchell]

This is 2009, not 1944.

Civilized people do not as easily go along with the idea of killing civilians during battles as they did 65 years ago.

Like it or not, but that's a fact.

the premise of your statement is incorrect and unprovable.

 

[Winman]

This is 2009, not 1944.

Civilized people do not as easily go along with the idea of killing civilians during battles as they did 65 years ago.

Like it or not, but that's a fact.

Terrorist groups do not seem to have difficulty killing civilians, in fact they seem to prefer civilians because they can't fight back. When you see a school bus full of kids rocketed in Israel it shows you what these folks are really like. They avoid the military, because they know they would be killed.

 

[billwald]

>>Civilized people do not as easily go along with the idea of killing civilians during battles as they did 65 years ago.

>>Like it or not, but that's a fact.

>the premise of your statement is incorrect and unprovable.

"We have met the enemy and he is us," Pogo.

 

[Spinach]

I'm sure our Grandpas enjoyed killing civilians. KenH's statement is not only wrong, it's offensive. They were not uncivilized.

 

[Salty]

This is 2009, not 1944.

Civilized people do not as easily go along with the idea of killing civilians during battles as they did 65 years ago.

Like it or not, but that's a fact.

I would like to know if anyone knows any WWII vets and ask them how many civillians they know of who were killed.

Yes, I would really like to know.

 

[alatide]

I would like to know if anyone knows any WWII vets and ask them how many civillians they know of who were killed.

Yes, I would really like to know.

Do we really have to ask? Millions of civilians were killed in WWI. Civilians are killed in every war. That's one reason we should be absolutely certain the war is necessary before we get involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties


Civilians killed totaled from 40 to 52 million, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine.

 

[carpro]

http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2009/09/marines-die-in-ambush.html

Marines Die In Ambushes - Cite Lack of Support

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines -- despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village!

"We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We've lost today," Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter's repeated demands for helicopters."

These Marines were assured that air support was no more than 5 minutes away. After an hour it became apparent they were not coming. Repeated calls for artillery support met with arguements, "You're too close to the village, we can't fire!" Was the reply. The exasperated Marine commander on the scene said the village was, one, supporting the fighters by running ammo and two, it wasn't that close. "Give us artillery support!" and he was denied.

While this might only be a micro account of the war, it is an honest reflection of the Obama Administration policy to win friends in Afghanistan by avoiding any possible collateral damage. This policy change was tried in Vietnam and it was tried in Iraq with tragic results. Since the new policy was inacted soldiers have suffered the worst casualties in a single month since the war began. If you need more proof this is a real bad policy I suggest you see a Marine recruiter.
-----------------------------------------------

More here:


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/75036.html

 

[KenH]

the premise of your statement is incorrect and unprovable.

My statement is correct and quite provable to anyone who has an understanding of the timeline of history. Of course, considering that most people hated to study history in school and certainly don't study it as adults those who have an understanding of the timeline of history are a quite distinct minority.

 

[KenH]

Terrorist groups do not seem to have difficulty killing civilians

I have no desire for us as Americans, especially Christians, to act like terrorists do. Do you?

 

[Revmitchell]

My statement is correct and quite provable to anyone who has an understanding of the timeline of history.

uh...yea

 

[KenH]

1) I'm sure our Grandpas enjoyed killing civilians.

2) KenH's statement is not only wrong, it's offensive.

3) They were not uncivilized.

1) I'm quite sure they did not.

2) My statement is correct and it is not offensive if one stops and thinks it through.

3) No, they were not uncivilized.

 

[Dragoon68]

Some people will incorrectly cite the number of civilian causalities during war in way that implies they are entirely America's fault and the result of our careless or wanton acts. That's wrong! Millions of people did die in World War II but the majority did so at the hands of our enemies or as a result of our necessary response to our enemies' aggression.

Others will demand unreasonable rules of engagement that can prolong a war, multiply the risk to our combatants, and give aid to the enemy who hides behind them. That's also wrong! Reasonable rules are a way to enforce the principles of just war. Unreasonable rules are an impediment to just war and lead to more injustice. It also contributes to lowered morale and incites more illicit acts of retaliation out of frustration.

It's my belief and experience that America has shown far more concern and compassion for civilians caught up in a war than any other nation, probably more in many cases than the armed forces of our allied host nations, and certainly much more so than our enemies who often have no regard whatsoever.

By the way, Obama's biggest priority for the military seems to be to make it "okay" for homosexuals to serve openly. That's just plain foolish but it will probably get him another bogus award not unlike his Nobel "peace" prize!

 

[OldRegular]

the premise of your statement is incorrect and unprovable.

You beat me to it. I was going to use a less polite characterization so thanks!

 

[OldRegular]

uh...yea

How about BS as in Buffalo Schips!

 

[OldRegular]

By the way, Obama's biggest priority for the military seems to be to make it "okay" for homosexuals to serve openly. That's just plain foolish but it will probably get him another bogus award not unlike his Nobel "peace" prize!

Is it possible this would cause an increase in friendly fire casualties.