| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| 'We're pinned down:' 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush |
| 2009-09-10 |
| Posted by:Chereling Angens3075 |
| #19 We really need to push this out to the blog world in a very big way. This country needs to rally around this incident and ram it up Obamas crack. He IS the Commander in Chief and must be held accountable for this incident. |
| Posted by: C 2009-09-10 23:30 |
| #18 OP, In my book they're combatants if they're carrying ammo, whether they're men, women or little kids. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-09-10 15:50 |
| #17 There are no civilians in Afghanistan - only noncombatants aiding and supporting one side or the other. Karzai is playing both sides, and needs to be eliminated. He needs to be the victim of a "roadside bomb". Abdullah isn't much better, but he at least stays bought. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2009-09-10 14:50 |
| #16 hmmm..not quite. At 6:05 a.m., as our position was becoming increasingly tenuous, Swenson and Fabayo agreed that it was time to pull back and radioed for artillery to fire smoke rounds to mask our retreat. "They don't have any smoke. They only have Willy Pete," Swenson reported, referring to white phosphorus rounds that spew smoke. Read more They weren't firing into the enemy positions, they were firing into the space between those positions and themselves to obscure visibility. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-09-10 12:15 |
| #15 they'd seen women and children in the village shuttling ammunition to fighters positioned in windows and roofs. We can't give fire support because it could kill innocent civilians - women and children. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-09-10 12:06 |
| #14 From Bill Roggio: "No air was available and artillery support didn't arrive until another 50 minutes later, at about 6:40 AM. Even then, only white phosphorus rounds were fired. Attack helicopters showed up another half hour later, at about 7:10." The support DID come, but it was late. To me that sounds more like disorganization, poor execution, not a ROE issue. Unless you think they were taking the extra 50 time to confirm that no civilians were present. Which is possible I suppose. Though it seems odd that the first rounds fired were Willy Pete, if the issue was ROE. |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-09-10 11:59 |
| #13 That's why there is provisions for an Article 32 procedure to take place, by a disinterested officer, that is someone not subject to influence or interference. That's what happened as soon as the command got wind of Abu Ghrab. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-09-10 11:40 |
| #12 Is any part of this the commanders knowing that the Obama Administration will hold them accountable for any civilians losing thier life, but not for the loss of our soldiers. |
| Posted by: plainslow 2009-09-10 11:34 |
| #11 this is from a reporter for McClatchy. I would very much like to hear what the officers in question have to say before I judge them. Note, the key promise was for choppers, not for artillery. It sounds more like a snafu than a consequence of the ROE, but again, I would reserve judgement till we know the details and hear the other side. Of course the new approach A. Will not succeed everywhere - no plan can prevent all human error B. Will not succeed until adequate resources have arrived in country - it is designed to work hand in glove with a surge in numbers, and to make the increased footprint more workable. C. It will have to evolve with tactical learning - no plan survives contact with the enemy, remember? |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-09-10 11:23 |
| #10 Such ROEs are nothing less than trraitorous condunct, in the sense that they aid the enemy and harm the US forces chances of success. The will also, of course, serve to lenghten the war through helping the enemy to survive, encourage civilians to assist them, and boost their morale by demonstrating a lack of will on our part. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2009-09-10 11:21 |
| #9 I'm sure General McCrystal can explain. Tell me again, how is that "hearts and minds" campaign coming along? Well, he certainly is losing the war on the Home Front. Those too young to recall, part of the antiwar movement of the Vietnam period was composed of those who objected to the way the war was conducted with restrictions and ROEs just like this. He may be a great thinker and general, but he, like his brethren fail to grasp that wars are fought on two fronts. The one before them and the one at home. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-09-10 11:04 |
| #8 We all knew it was coming. I'm surprised it took this long. Any place in the decision-making chain where cowards can hide must be eliminated. And the ROEs need to be fixed. Again. It's a travesty how this same crap keeps coming up over and over. It's like nobody can learn a lesson by observation any more. |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-09-10 10:57 |
| #7 Start at the TOP moose, start at the TOP! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-09-10 10:39 |
| #6 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. 899. Art. 99. Misbehavior before the enemy Any member of the armed forces who before or in the presence of the enemy— (1) runs away; (2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend; (3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property; (4) casts away his arms or ammunition; (5) is guilty of cowardly conduct; (6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage; (7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces; (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. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-09-10 10:38 |
| #5 These Marines are going to get payback against the officers that denied them artillery support. This is a blood grudge, a debt that must be paid. It would have been better for whoever was directly responsible for that artillery support to provide it, then resign for disobeying an order. As it is, he is cowering behind a "just following orders" excuse. And that is no shield from angry Marines. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-09-10 10:34 |
| #4 These children are tomorrow's terrorists, and the women are nothing more than terrorist factories. Fuck 'em |
| Posted by: Destro_in_Panama 2009-09-10 10:25 |
| #3 I'm sure General McCrystal can explain. Tell me again, how is that "hearts and minds" campaign coming along? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-09-10 09:46 |
| #2 Not one of the Attackers was worth a Marine's Life. This is BS! |
| Posted by: 3dc 2009-09-10 09:42 |
| #1 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. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2009-09-10 09:41 |