Article

2009-06-25 Afghanistan

McChrystal Urges Greater Protection of Afghan Civilians

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 GolfBravoUSMC 2009-06-25 02:22|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 I guess we know where terrorists are going to be shooting from in the future.

Posted by gorb 2009-06-25 03:26|| 2009-06-25 03:26|| Front Page Top

#2 Exactly. All they have to do is drag a kid or a woman along and they are invulnerable.
Or they hangout in somebody's house and shoot at Americans as they go by. We can't shoot back because we might hit civilians.

Posted by Rambler in Virginia">Rambler in Virginia 2009-06-25 05:33|| 2009-06-25 05:33|| Front Page Top

#3 It's not the ROEs that are the problem per se, rather the 'zero tolerance' attitude that go with them. If you don't trust your subordinates to effectively use the brains they're given, then don't put them in a position of authority. Its the micromanagement that destroys initiative and in the end results in system failure.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-06-25 07:21|| 2009-06-25 07:21|| Front Page Top

#4 How about Safe Zones where the infidels are not allowed to fire? After all Pakistan is such a long walk away and even terrorists need R&R.

Posted by ed 2009-06-25 07:34|| 2009-06-25 07:34|| Front Page Top

#5 Remaind me again---exactly why USA in Afghanistan?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2009-06-25 07:35|| 2009-06-25 07:35|| Front Page Top

#6 Unbelievable.
that will order troops to break away from fights -- if they can do so safely

...You mean like, retreat?

"the reason we're here, is the people, not the Taliban."

....are we now the people's soldiers?

He said later that U.S. troops may have been overconfident in the early years of the Afghan conflict after the Taliban regime fell so easily.

....Blaming our "overconfident" troops for the increase in violence since the enemies defeat in Iraq?

Posted by Besoeker 2009-06-25 07:38|| 2009-06-25 07:38|| Front Page Top

#7 As I said before this is farking stupid. This is worse than the 'no fire zones' of vietnam. All a terrorist has to do now is flash a civilian (even if they aren't _really_ a civilian) and voila they have an instant no-fire-zone.

The Democrats (and I think this is coming form on-high) are bound and determined to recreate Vietnam - no matter what the cost in American lives - to them the more dead americans in 'Bush'es war' the better!

Posted by CrazyFool 2009-06-25 09:06|| 2009-06-25 09:06|| Front Page Top

#8 I was watching old footage of the bombing of Nazi Germany yesterday or the day before on the History Channel. The allies made a decision to bomb German civilian populations around the clock to break the will of the civilian population. The was soon over. War is not pretty and does not follow Marquis of Queensberrry rules.

Posted by JohnQC 2009-06-25 09:25|| 2009-06-25 09:25|| Front Page Top

#9 I realize he's approaching retirement, but isn't it interesting how General Petreaus and his views no long appears newsworthy. One must wonder if General McChrystal's approach makes him the.... new darling of the administration. The verbage certainly matches.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-06-25 09:25|| 2009-06-25 09:25|| Front Page Top

#10 The war was soon over.

Posted by JohnQC 2009-06-25 09:25|| 2009-06-25 09:25|| Front Page Top

#11 I've said it before and I'll say it again...there's a large (I think a strong majority) segment of the Democratic Party that desperately craves a defeat for American arms...somewhere, anywhere. My bet for "next shoe to drop" on this issue is for controls on the use of tac air to get so tight that ANY request for close-air support must be approved by the White House.

The Obamessiah and his robot army do not have this country's best interests at heart, and I believe that they're willing to cause something like this if it will serve their larger objective of driving America off the world stage.

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2009-06-25 09:47|| 2009-06-25 09:47|| Front Page Top

#12 McChrystal's not really wrong - every dead or reported-dead civilian or 'civilian' ends up being a propaganda victory for the Taliban because the US - and its Afghan allies - seem utterly incapable of conducting a propaganda campaign. There are 25 million Afghans and we cannot realistically kill all of them, which is what it could take to 'win' this war if we lose the 'hearts and minds.' We have to get the Afghans capable of being lead trigger-pullers because collateral damage wouldn't be near the propaganda problem. Until that can happen, I think we have to mainly deal in Special Ops and sniper work.

Posted by Glenmore 2009-06-25 10:08|| 2009-06-25 10:08|| Front Page Top

#13 Protecting civs is a police function, not a job for the US military.

Posted by mojo 2009-06-25 10:39|| 2009-06-25 10:39|| Front Page Top

#14 It is a pity that we can`t get rid of the politicians both sides of the Atlantic, because right now they are a disgrace.

Posted by Dave UK 2009-06-25 10:55|| 2009-06-25 10:55|| Front Page Top

#15 This is also admitting that our military is a failure in the 'information war'. They spend their training, resources, and focus on breaking and killing things and have ignored the requirement to conduct such warfare. The enemy is in that decision loop and our uniform leadership is unwilling or unable to get into theirs. So they continuously 'react' to the enemy's effectiveness in controlling the information.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-06-25 11:51|| 2009-06-25 11:51|| Front Page Top

#16 It might help if our media (ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/AP/Ruthers/etc...) weren't on the side of the terrorists and against America.

Posted by CrazyFool 2009-06-25 12:16|| 2009-06-25 12:16|| Front Page Top

#17 It might have helped if DoD learned the MSM was on the side of the enemy and actively competed against it. Instead of shutting down the troops on the net and video on the various 'tubes, if they'd found the best and used the talent to conduct 'unconventional warfare' against that media they'd be a in better position today. Old ways of thinking [we just want to refight the good war - WWII] keep holding them down.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-06-25 14:25|| 2009-06-25 14:25|| Front Page Top

#18 "the reason we're here, is the people, not the Taliban."

The reason they're "over there" is that these people

who were members of an organizations based in and sheltered by the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan came to the US and did this:

and this

After this ~~tragedy~~ massacre, President Bush declared that "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.".

Days later he issued an ultimatum

"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."

which that the Taliban ignored.

Hence Operation ~~Infinite Justice~~ Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

Posted by Spavith Scourge of the Jutes9383 2009-06-25 16:28|| 2009-06-25 16:28|| Front Page Top

#19 Well said, Spavith Scourge of the Jutes9383.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2009-06-25 19:56|| 2009-06-25 19:56|| Front Page Top

23:59 newc
23:59 Atomic Conspiracy
23:44 Popnsyoa
23:31 OldSpook
23:29 OldSpook
23:20 OldSpook
23:14 Sockpuppet of Doom
22:41 Pappy
22:40 Frank G
22:35 Pappy
22:24 tu3031
22:09 Richard of Oregon
22:07 3dc
21:55 Muggsy Glink
21:48 Herman Thatch1710
21:42 Barbara Skolaut
21:40 Barbara Skolaut
21:38 Barbara Skolaut
21:32 Barbara Skolaut
21:01 Frank G
20:58 3dc
20:57 Butthead
20:52 Frank G
20:41 Frank G