US troops in Afghanistan forbidden from defending themselves
I guess the United States has decided to implement the Goldstone Report recommendations for itself. Either that, or they like the Israeli 'strategy' of turning the other cheek which was how we handled rocket fire from Gaza until December 2008. You see, the Obama administration has forbidden US troops from defending themselves against Taliban rocket fire. They're afraid of civilian casualties (Hat Tip: Sunlight). On Tuesday, the Washington Examiner reported that our troops are forbidden to defend themselves as Taliban terrorists fire rockets at U.S. forward-operating bases. The reason? The terrorists may be within 500 feet of civilian villages.Read the whole thing.
Our forces have also been ordered to remove watchtowers because villagers' "privacy" might be violated. Never mind the mortar shells raining down on the Americans. Finally, our troops have been commanded to cease combat if a Taliban terrorist drops his weapon after firing his.
If Obama orders US troops to commit suicide, do they have to follow the orders? If US troops are ordered to commit suicide, do Israeli troops have to get similar orders?
But give the Obama administration credit for one thing: They're implementing the Goldstone Report. They can't win a war this way, and at least it's not American civilians who are taking casualties, but it's going to be hell on military recruitment if this insanity continues.
What could go wrong?
UPDATE 11:45 PM
J.E. Dyer, who blogs at both Contentions and in Hot Air's Green Room, in addition to writing her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative, comments:
These ROE have been in place for some time now (they're from the McChrystal period), and they do interfere with effectiveness in "win the population" COIN. Ironically, now that the tactics have shifted more to hunting and killing the Taliban and other imported terrorists, hearts-n-minds COIN is on the back burner and our exposed troops' security footing has changed. It has changed for the better, but in the long run the more lethal tactics are for the worse. They are only being approved as a means of making good on Obama's determination to withdraw troops entirely starting in July 2011. They aren't making the villagers of Afghanistan safer or giving them any incentive to be loyal to the central government.Sounds just like Iraq in the sense that the goal is to bring US troops home regardless of whether their missions have been accomplished. Of course, that gives away everything that was gained before Obama took office. And somehow, I highly doubt that Obama is bringing the troops home because he plans to send them to Iran either. That will be left to Israel to handle.
The Taliban hold more of Afghanistan now than they did in August 2009, when McChrystal first forwarded his surge strategy to the boss. The Taliban are killing more Afghans now than they have at any time since 2001. Obama's failure to implement a surge with robustness and dispatch has only made it harder to do what he's trying to do between now and July. The Taliban have places to hide in the north, west, and extreme northeast that they didn't have a year ago. What was always needed was a package of BOTH the lethal pursuit tactics and the more restrained COIN among the villagers (what McChrystal wanted to do, with a specific geographic focus), but Obama took forever last year to ultimately decide against that all-out effort. He's been trying to do one or the other, and that's just not going to work.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:23 PM
5 Comments:
Both Obama and Petraeus must know that they are throwing away the lives of Americans and NATO allies for nothing.
Shame on them both.
Re IBD Editorials, you can subscribe to the read out loud, to listen to on your iPod at the gym, driving, or doing chores... Go here:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/IBDEditorials.aspx
You can read them there or go down a little and click on IBD Podcasts, where you can listen online or you can subscribe to their pieces as iTunes podcasts... I've subscribed to both the "featured" and the "daily". "Featured" is hardly ever. "Daily" is 4 or 5 pieces (~3min each) a day.
These guys seem to read blogs across the internet. Wouldn't surprise me if they don't read Carl's. Then they source some numbers, etc. and write it up. Their masthead (Investor's Business Daily) falls into a category that the knuckleheads who still insist on the lying New York Times *will* read, acknowledge, and pay attention to. A great resource for arguing with lefties.
Remember who is in charge here:
"Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday [2007] the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072000831_pf.html
Remember his friend in the Kenya govt sent out the machete people when he didn't like the results of an election... No problem for the sophisticated Obama.
I sure hope the new Congress has the cajones to face this guy down.
I don't mind that they are not able to defend themselves ...I mind that they are being sacrificed to obama's god allah ....impeach him and bring our soldiers home there are plenty of enemy waiting here to keep them busy now if we wait obama will bring 80,000 more ...its time to show obama the door ...terminal fail ...sacrifice our troops is a bad executive decision
I don't mind that they are not able to defend themselves ...I mind that they are being sacrificed to obama's god allah ....impeach him and bring our soldiers home there are plenty of enemy waiting here to keep them busy now if we wait obama will bring 80,000 more ...its time to show obama the door ...terminal fail ...sacrifice our troops is a bad executive decision
Post a Comment
<< Home