http://www.radicalislam.org/blog/year039s-end-afghanistan039s-coin-casualties-must-be-reckoned
In the General Baptist Discussion forum is a thread about a fatwa ordered allowing Muslim terrorists freedom to rape 14 year olds, widowed, or unmarried Syrian women. There was a link. And within that link, at the bottom of the article, I found an article titled The Tragic End of SSgt Matthew Sitton in Afghanistan.
The late SSgt Sitton wrote his congressman to ask him to intervene regarding the standing orders from their Brigade higher ups that the field troops, at a given time, every day, conduct a patrol with no clear cut objectives.
Now, in a regular war, a patrol ALWAYS has an objective, either it goes out for combat, reconnaisance, intelligence gathering and/or confirmation, but there is always a reason.
So, I don't really agree with that part of his letter, the gist of which is as a result of this no-direction patrolling many of his buddies go home in body bags or less limbs because of the dangers of IED.
That part of the letter, I think, is meritorious, considering that, as his congressman noted in the article, our taxes pay for almost 3B dollars for the protection of our troops from IED's.
Here are some excerpts that I find disturbing, though.
The Brigade command requires Sgt Sitton's unit to conduct 2 patrol sorties of 2-4 hours a day with no established end result or objective. As I stated, there is ALWAYS an objective, whether stated or not. That is, to engage the enemy. Whether a patrol goes out on medical or humanitarian missions, or what not, bottom line is engage the enemy.
I don't know how much the rules of engagement have changed.
The late Sgt Sitton mentioned something about that.
But, here's something which I think is NEVER THE WAY A WARRIOR IS TREATED BY ANYONE and I don't care how many stars he has on his collar.
WTH ?
I think this should only happen when a unit is in danger of being overran. But to meet a daily 2 patrols quota ?
Ridiculous.
In the General Baptist Discussion forum is a thread about a fatwa ordered allowing Muslim terrorists freedom to rape 14 year olds, widowed, or unmarried Syrian women. There was a link. And within that link, at the bottom of the article, I found an article titled The Tragic End of SSgt Matthew Sitton in Afghanistan.
The late SSgt Sitton wrote his congressman to ask him to intervene regarding the standing orders from their Brigade higher ups that the field troops, at a given time, every day, conduct a patrol with no clear cut objectives.
Now, in a regular war, a patrol ALWAYS has an objective, either it goes out for combat, reconnaisance, intelligence gathering and/or confirmation, but there is always a reason.
So, I don't really agree with that part of his letter, the gist of which is as a result of this no-direction patrolling many of his buddies go home in body bags or less limbs because of the dangers of IED.
That part of the letter, I think, is meritorious, considering that, as his congressman noted in the article, our taxes pay for almost 3B dollars for the protection of our troops from IED's.
Here are some excerpts that I find disturbing, though.
The Brigade command requires Sgt Sitton's unit to conduct 2 patrol sorties of 2-4 hours a day with no established end result or objective. As I stated, there is ALWAYS an objective, whether stated or not. That is, to engage the enemy. Whether a patrol goes out on medical or humanitarian missions, or what not, bottom line is engage the enemy.
I don't know how much the rules of engagement have changed.
The late Sgt Sitton mentioned something about that.
But, here's something which I think is NEVER THE WAY A WARRIOR IS TREATED BY ANYONE and I don't care how many stars he has on his collar.
WTH ?
I think this should only happen when a unit is in danger of being overran. But to meet a daily 2 patrols quota ?
Ridiculous.
Last edited by a moderator:
