| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| New Afghan ROE " mean that they fight with one arm tied behind their backs". |
| 2009-10-08 |
| The men are frustrated by the lack of obvious purpose or progress. “The soldiers’ biggest question is: what can we do to make this war stop. Catch one person? Assault one objective? Soldiers want definite answers, other than to stop the Taleban, because that almost seems impossible. It’s hard to catch someone you can’t see,” said Specialist Mercer. “It’s a very frustrating mission,” said Lieutenant Hjelmstad. “The average soldier sees a friend blown up and his instinct is to retaliate or believe it’s for something [worthwhile], but it’s not like other wars where your buddy died but they took the hill. There’s no tangible reward for the sacrifice. It’s hard to say Wardak is better than when we got here.” Captain Masengale, a soldier for 12 years before he became a chaplain, said: “We want to believe in a cause but we don’t know what that cause is.” The soldiers are angry that colleagues are losing their lives while trying to help a population that will not help them. “You give them all the humanitarian assistance that they want and they’re still going to lie to you. They’ll tell you there’s no Taleban anywhere in the area and as soon as you roll away, ten feet from their house, you get shot at again,” said Specialist Eric Petty, from Georgia. Captain Rico told of the disgust of a medic who was asked to treat an insurgent shortly after pulling a colleague’s charred corpse from a bombed vehicle. The soldiers complain that rules of engagement designed to minimise civilian casualties mean that they fight with one arm tied behind their backs. “They’re a joke,” said one. “You get shot at but can do nothing about it. You have to see the person with the weapon. It’s not enough to know which house the shooting’s coming from.” |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #12 Mr Obama appears to have been swayed in recent days by arguments from some advisers, led by Vice-President Joe Biden, that the Taleban do not pose a direct threat to the US and that there should be greater focus on tackling al-Qaeda inside Pakistan. Make that "focus on tackling al-Qaeda" where ever they are and I'll go along with that. The Taliban (or anyone else who wants that feudal s*it hole) can have Afghanistan for all I care. |
| Posted by: tipper 2009-10-08 21:45 |
| #11 the problem is that there is no real end state/commander's intent right now - Military strategy has to satisfy clearly defined political objectives - I have no fucking clue what the political objectives are - it's either nebulous at best or flat out doesn't support the reality on the ground. When a concrete end state is set in place the boys can plan off of it and then the confusion on ROEs will likely go away - that's if the JAGs writing them understand the diff between proportionality and proportionate response - two vastly different concepts. I hope Gen McC at least knows the difference...I have confidence that w/his background he does. Small Wars/COIN/SASO/Phillipine Insurrection type of ops are complex, long and difficult. This is nothing new - 110 yrs ago right now we did the phillipines at a way bigger cost in manpower then iraq. I don't like it any better then you. The question is - is Afghanistan really a credible threat? If yes, then we have to do the Small Wars model - build civilian infrastructure, police force - maslow's hiearchy of needs for the tribal primitives etc. Hell, I'd love to carpet bomb half the M.E. & persia but that will never fly so no use in even carping about it. If douchebagistan is not a real threat to our security, then we need to get the fuck out - not one American life for those lousy c*cksuckers. I have to believe that Gen McC rightly asked for more troops, understands the reality based on his guidance (if very thin) from Obambi...now I'm watching the disgusting spectacle of bambi wavering in the wind on trying to triangulate and politic for 2010 on the lives of our boys, disgustingly craven. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2009-10-08 21:13 |
| #10 JohnQC: What the hell is wrong with Washington? Let's set that up as a take-home test, limiting pages to 5 at this time. Say, due back Monday morning. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2009-10-08 20:50 |
| #9 The Taliban are shooting at and killing our guys. They are the friggin enemy. That's fairly clear. What the hell is wrong with Washington? Forget the last question; that's fairly clear too. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-10-08 19:09 |
| #8 Soldiers want definite answers, other than to stop the Taleban Well, here's an answer: Mr Obama appears to have been swayed in recent days by arguments from some advisers, led by Vice-President Joe Biden, that the Taleban do not pose a direct threat to the US and that there should be greater focus on tackling al-Qaeda inside Pakistan. |
| Posted by: Willy 2009-10-08 16:32 |
| #7 |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-10-08 14:35 |
| #6 and its going to frustrate troops in the field from time to time. Frustrate them? Under these 'new' ROE, they'll have to consult a lawyer first and shoot later. They won't be 'frustrated'. They'll be dead. |
| Posted by: Woozle Uneter9007 2009-10-08 13:32 |
| #5 What new strategy. NcChrystal's talking about the troops needed to implement the strategy set in March, not a new strategy. |
| Posted by: Varmint Glath4987 2009-10-08 12:54 |
| #4 My spidey sense tells me a lot of Regs in UCMJ are being broken daily! Obama is part of the chain of command...unfortunately he seems to ignore or downplay this as best he can. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2009-10-08 12:18 |
| #3 seems from the quote above, the main frustration is that things havent improved. The new strategy, coupled with proper resourcing, is aimed to change that. I think Gen McCrystal is entitled to some time to show that strategy can work. Its going to frustrate Dem politicians, and its going to frustrate troops in the field from time to time. But we can no more fight a war based on the views of junior officers and enlistees, than we can fight it based on the tactical views of politicians in Washington. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2009-10-08 11:36 |
| #2 TITLE 10 U.S.C. > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 47 > SUBCHAPTER X > § 899 Art. 99. Misbehavior before the enemy Any member of the armed forces who before or in the presence of the enemy— ... (8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or (9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle; shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct. Are the present ROEs as interpreted and implemented on the field in direct violation of the UCMJ [and thus Federal Law]? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-10-08 10:17 |
| #1 These ROE need to be scrapped. And this jackass needs to get serious about the war. It's one of the few constitutional duties he has. |
| Posted by: newc 2009-10-08 09:50 |