Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 08/04/2010 View Tue 08/03/2010 View Mon 08/02/2010 View Sun 08/01/2010 View Sat 07/31/2010 View Fri 07/30/2010 View Thu 07/29/2010
1
2010-08-04 Afghanistan
Petraeus To Make ROE Twice As Hard
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by  Anonymoose 2010-08-04 11:42|| || Front Page|| [3 views ]  Top

#1 emphasised the need to partner Afghan troops at all times

Doubtless Petraeus meant that US troops need to stop Afghan troops killing civilians, but the journo has included the quote in way that implies Afghan troops will stop US troops killing civilians.
Posted by phil_b 2010-08-04 12:06||   2010-08-04 12:06|| Front Page Top

#2 but the journo has included the quote in way that implies Afghan troops will stop US troops killing civilians.

Makes sense, soon the war will end, this makes the Afghan Military (Who will remain there as the "Peacekeepers") the "Good Guy", I like it, it's devious.
Posted by Redneck Jim 2010-08-04 12:14||   2010-08-04 12:14|| Front Page Top

#3 having the ANA with them will prevent most encounters with isolated Taliban in civilian areas as the ANA will tip off the Taliban that we are coming and they will go hide.

the notable exception being when the taliwackers can gather enough forces for a successful ambush, at which time, we can respond with force provided the Taliban forget their human shields.

also, embedding more ANA in with our troops will make it easier for the 'rogue' elements of the ANA to shoot our friendlies in the back at close range as well as provide routes and methods intel to the Taliban so that they can be more effective in IED placement.

what is not to love?
Posted by  abu do you love  2010-08-04 12:59||   2010-08-04 12:59|| Front Page Top

#4 Hell, just take this mentality to its logical conclusion: avoid all risk to civilians from coalition troops, and pull out.

On the other hand, NATO forces could IGNORE collateral damage and go hell for leather to wipe out the Taliban.

I know which track would lead to success.
Posted by Bulldog 2010-08-04 13:02||   2010-08-04 13:02|| Front Page Top

#5 Don't break any glass either?
Posted by JohnQC 2010-08-04 14:12||   2010-08-04 14:12|| Front Page Top

#6 My guess is that the new rules are less stringent, which is why he said that the troops should redouble their efforts to reduce civilian deaths.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2010-08-04 14:15|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com  2010-08-04 14:15|| Front Page Top

#7 "These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate."
George W. Bush, Statement To Joint Session Of Congress September 20th 2001

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."
George W. Bush, September 11th 2001


When Bush made these statements he spoke in his capacity as President, in the immediate aftermath of a mass fatality attack on the continental US.

At the time these statements were not controversial, this was political consensus in the US and NATO.

This is the political reason for US and NATO troops to be in Afghanistan in the first place.

But apparently these were just inconsequential rants worthy of a Comical Ali. Afghanistan is being refurbished and renovated by Western Countries and will soon be returned to the Taliban. The elimination of the Taliban isn't even the objective anymore, the goal is reconciliation, peace and power sharing.

Mullah Omar is at this time not one Karzai's cabinet minsters because he declined Karzai's offer after all.
Posted by Clyde Slomort7420 2010-08-04 14:34||   2010-08-04 14:34|| Front Page Top

#8 Pull out and nuke the he$$ out of both Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the point where no one from there could manage to bake a loaf of bread, much less carry out a long-distance asymmetrical war. The entire US military & civilian hierarchy has forgotten that the first, last, and only rule of warfare is to make your enemy quit. Everything else is tactics.
Posted by Old Patriot 2010-08-04 20:25||   2010-08-04 20:25|| Front Page Top

23:46 Snusoter Fillmore9811
23:26 tipper
23:07 gorb
23:02 gorb
23:00 Procopius2k
22:58 tu3031
22:56 Willy
22:55 Pappy
22:53 gorb
22:45 gorb
22:22 Gleresing the Ruthless9623
22:02 Asymmetrical Triangulation
21:58 Broadhead6
21:35 tu3031
21:27 JosephMendiola
21:23 JosephMendiola
21:08 JosephMendiola
21:06 Nimble Spemble
21:06 tu3031
20:58 JosephMendiola
20:57 Pappy
20:51 JosephMendiola
20:46 Besoeker
20:45 JosephMendiola









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com