Petraeus to Change Afghan. Rules of Engagement

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by CarolinaTiger61, Jun 25, 2010.

  1. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    i dunno much, but i do know my brother in law is an intelligence battalion commander, and just returned from afghanistan, and he is incredibly frustrated and angry with the rules of engagement. he blames "hillary clinton's state department" for sending idiots over to manage policy.
     
  2. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    33,702
    Likes Received:
    16,644
    Nothing is going to change unless there is WW3, but that is not likely to happen.

    There were hardly any rules of engagement in WW2 it was simply "Shoot the bad guy."

    In Vietnam and the current wars, out politicians care more about the well fare of the countries we protect than they do our solders.

    The only thing that would lift these rules of engagement would be another attack on American soil. It would take that to piss off enough Americans for them not to complain about the innocent lives that would be lost.

    There is no mistake about it, more and more Americans hate the war every day because no progress is seen.
    Either we want to kill terrorist or not. Killing terrorist means that innocent people will die and people just have to accept that or pull the troops out and watch as more and more terrorist attacks happen in the U.S. and around the world.
     
  3. gumborue

    gumborue Throwin Ched

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    10,839
    Likes Received:
    577
    innocent lives are stupid.

    does joining the taliban in the fight against the US count as "people just have to accept that"?
     
  4. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    33,702
    Likes Received:
    16,644
    Yea, every time one of our soldiers die it’s an innocent life.
    I don’t really understand were your coming from.. I mean, it's either fight them over there or have them terrorize us here.

    There is no way to not have the blood of innocents spilled in the war that they want to fight.

    All I’m saying is, if we are going to commit the lives and money to fight these guys, we need to let our guys fight. Not let Politicians thousands of miles away dictate their actions. If we cannot provide the means for the best plan to keep our troops safe, then there is no reason to be there.

    It’s not like we go out of our way to drop a missile on some family’s house. These people we are fighting are not right in the head and are far worse than the German’s or Japanese were. These people would kill our children without a seconds thought. They are freaking nutt jobs.

    I mean, does anyone here really think that if our forces were allowed to go full out on these guys that this war would still be going on? I sure as hell don't.

    :usaflagwa
     
  5. shane0911

    shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    37,755
    Likes Received:
    23,932
    I wouldn't be too quick to call them clueless. These things as sad as they are are very situationally dictated. The ROE changes and not being there now it is hard to know exactly what they are allowed or not allowed to do. I can tell you that we were taking fire (direct) from a roof top in '06 and were told we could NOT return fire UNLESS we actually saw the raghead with the rifle in his hand. Of course they somehow know this information as well so there are 3 or 4 of them on the rooftop with only one popping up and down like a jack in the box taking pot shots at us. The trouble is that regardless of how bad we wanted to cut them all down you just can't. The freaking jag lawyers are like sharks in a bloody pool when something like this happens. It is almost as if they are on the wrong team.
     
  6. gumborue

    gumborue Throwin Ched

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    10,839
    Likes Received:
    577
    i gotcha, but i suppose i never think anything is ever wrong about complaining about collateral damage. it is inevitable, but it always sucks.

    this is a political war. politics and public perception (on both sides) are important. this isnt some campaign where we're trying to crush them and walk away.
     
  7. ashaman24

    ashaman24 Maastricht, Netherlands

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    2

    I'm not saying that the RoE isn't restrictive. I don't know if it's changed since my tours in Iraq. But I do know that it doesn't prevent you using force in self defense ever and that will never change.

    I certainly know better than these parents just looking to blame something on a son dieing rather than understanding that it is a real possibility when you enlist and head to war and that is the nature of the beast no matter how sad.
     
  8. shane0911

    shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    37,755
    Likes Received:
    23,932
    If you have been there then you know it CAN be very restrictive. I just pointed out an instance of where we knew where the bullets were coming from, could see them, but could NOT return fire until we saw them with the rifle. Surely the parents could be looking for something to blame, that can only be a natural reaction. I am only saying they might not be too far off of point because we DON'T know all of the circumstances.
     
  9. CarolinaTiger61

    CarolinaTiger61 Recently Repatriated

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    49
    Also, the ROE is dependent on which part of the theater you're operating in and who your bosses are. In Helmand Province in 2009, for example, the British Army had far more restrictive ROEs than the Marines, who were operating in the same area, or just down the road. So who knows what the ROE was like in the area where that soldier was killed. I do have to say, though, that if you're the NCO or OIC out there leading the patrol being shot at, it would take a helluva lot of discipline to not shoot back if your higher (who's not even there) is telling you not to.
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. shane0911

    shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    37,755
    Likes Received:
    23,932
    See the first time we went with Col Hickey as our BDE CDR. Guy was a real hard ass. I think he has a statue of Patton in his bed room or something like that. Had not a sympathetic bone in his body for anything iraqi and his strategy was crazy successful. We went the second time with the same BDE but with a different commander. Pasqurette, he wanted to be Col Hickey and actually started out that way. Then he got lambasted by some liberal rag, WSJ or NYT, not sure which. It completely changed the way he operated after that. I don't know if it came from the BDE level (personally I don't think so) I think it was a Division thing but it changed and he went loco. We caught a guy putting in an IED. Achmed takes off running and let me tell you, them effers have some scoots. We chased his ass all over the desert (because we couldn't shoot him). When the fastest of our bunch caught him he put him face down in the sand and just put a foot on his back. Didn't stand on him or kick him, just sort of a; mother effer I'm spent you stay your ass right there type of thing. Well BDE watched all this crap on the drone cam and did all they could to prosecute Kevin for detainee abuse. Can you believe that sh!t? Thats the type of stuff that makes you just scratch your head.:huh:
     

Share This Page