Obama's legacy:Our troops were fighting with one hand tied behind their back!

healthmyths

Platinum Member
Sep 19, 2011
28,222
9,816
900
During Obama's administration these really dangerous "Rules of Engagement" (ROE) were implemented.

A laminated card ROE with the following text was distributed to all U.S. Army and Marine personnel in Iraq.
Policies about limiting civilian casualties have soldiers complaining they can't effectively fight;
one showed author Michael Hastings a card with regulations including:
"Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."
For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests.
“Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch.
In Afghanistan, a New General -- But An Old Strategy

But it reaches absurdity when the effect is to allow Taliban fighters a free pass. They understand this, and they take advantage of the policy by hiding among civilians as they attack US troops.
There are signs that Team Obama may be waking up: Reports at week’s end indicated that Petraeus wants to loosen combat restrictions, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates insisted — contradicting Vice President Joe Biden — that the 2011 withdrawal would be conditioned on the facts on the ground.
Good — but not good enough.
What’s still missing is trust among America’s troops — not to mention its enemies — that their leaders are as serious about winning as they are.
https://nypost.com/2010/06/28/rules-of-estrangement/

February 2, 2016 · by RC Porter · in Afghanistan, Air Force, Army, CIA, DIA, espionage, spying, foreign policy, Intelligence Community, Marines, military history, national security, NATO, POTUS, Special Operations, targeted killing, terrorism, US Military · Leave a comment
U.S. military commanders say they have repeatedly put their troops in harm’s way for progress that has proved fleeting, according to coalition members working with the U.S.-led military coalition.

“We have the capacity to annihilate the Taliban threat. But because of the rules of engagement under the new mission, our hands are tied,” said an American adviser to the coalition in Helmand, who described the rules as incomprehensible.

The rules of engagement in Afghanistan changed a year ago, when the U.S. and its allies ended their combat mission and began a new effort consisting of training, advising and assisting Afghan forces, and conducting counterterrorism operations when needed.
You are being redirected...
 
We should in the future reject all rules of engagement that do not advantage us.
 
Obama's 'Legacy':
US troops were pimped out to Al Qaeda to help them kill a sovereign leader helping the coalition fight terrorists in North Africa and to help Al Qaeda take Libya for their own..

Obama's 'Legacy':
The Nobel Peace Price Winner invaded a sovereign nation in the midst of a civil war without permission from Congress or permission or by request from the President or government we invaded, leaving the US troops to be stuck in Syria as 'Human Shields' for the Kurds, unwanted people who have no homeland while he packed up and left the WH after his 2nd term was up.


.
 
ROE is stupid. If you're going to war there are no rules.

ROE's are indeed stupid. If the other guy has a gun shoot his stupid ass. Don't wait for him to shoot at you.

I agree. No rules in war. Kill the other guy before he can kill you. Beat the shit out of them, win the war then go home. Let them rebuild their country.

Hearts and minds my ass.
 
During Obama's administration these really dangerous "Rules of Engagement" (ROE) were implemented.

A laminated card ROE with the following text was distributed to all U.S. Army and Marine personnel in Iraq.
Policies about limiting civilian casualties have soldiers complaining they can't effectively fight;
one showed author Michael Hastings a card with regulations including:
"Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."
For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests.
“Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch.
In Afghanistan, a New General -- But An Old Strategy

But it reaches absurdity when the effect is to allow Taliban fighters a free pass. They understand this, and they take advantage of the policy by hiding among civilians as they attack US troops.
There are signs that Team Obama may be waking up: Reports at week’s end indicated that Petraeus wants to loosen combat restrictions, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates insisted — contradicting Vice President Joe Biden — that the 2011 withdrawal would be conditioned on the facts on the ground.
Good — but not good enough.
What’s still missing is trust among America’s troops — not to mention its enemies — that their leaders are as serious about winning as they are.
https://nypost.com/2010/06/28/rules-of-estrangement/

February 2, 2016 · by RC Porter · in Afghanistan, Air Force, Army, CIA, DIA, espionage, spying, foreign policy, Intelligence Community, Marines, military history, national security, NATO, POTUS, Special Operations, targeted killing, terrorism, US Military · Leave a comment
U.S. military commanders say they have repeatedly put their troops in harm’s way for progress that has proved fleeting, according to coalition members working with the U.S.-led military coalition.

“We have the capacity to annihilate the Taliban threat. But because of the rules of engagement under the new mission, our hands are tied,” said an American adviser to the coalition in Helmand, who described the rules as incomprehensible.

The rules of engagement in Afghanistan changed a year ago, when the U.S. and its allies ended their combat mission and began a new effort consisting of training, advising and assisting Afghan forces, and conducting counterterrorism operations when needed.
You are being redirected...
Once the Taliban were out of power, it was not a military action, it was a police action and the politics and optics were more important than the body count.
 
ROE is stupid. If you're going to war there are no rules.

ROE's are indeed stupid. If the other guy has a gun shoot his stupid ass. Don't wait for him to shoot at you.

I agree. No rules in war. Kill the other guy before he can kill you. Beat the shit out of them, win the war then go home. Let them rebuild their country.

Hearts and minds my ass.

I heartily agree 100% with you. So where was the MSM on this because Obama's "globalist" America's # 1 apologist had NO idea of what was required and
more so the people he hired had the same mentality!

Read this example:

"As the car disappeared into the night, the senior officer on the scene radioed for permission to fire.
His request went to the TOC, the tactical operations center, which is the beating heart of command and control in the battlefield environment.
There the “battle captain,” or the senior officer in the chain of command, would decide — shoot or don’t shoot.

If soldiers opened fire after a lawyer had deemed the attack outside the rules, they would risk discipline — even prosecution.
But first there was a call for the battle captain to make, all the way to brigade headquarters, where a JAG officer — an Army lawyer — was on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
His job was to analyze the request, apply the governing rules of engagement, and make a recommendation to the chain of command.
While the commander made the ultimate decision, he rarely contradicted JAG recommendations. After all, if soldiers opened fire after a lawyer had deemed the attack outside the rules, they would risk discipline — even prosecution — if the engagement went awry.

NONE of the above steps were required in any previous wars the USA has been involved in...ending with the Korean war... starting with Vietnam!
In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.

Shades of Vietnam: Spike in U.S. troop deaths tied to stricter rules of engagement
 
ROE is stupid. If you're going to war there are no rules.

ROE's are indeed stupid. If the other guy has a gun shoot his stupid ass. Don't wait for him to shoot at you.

I agree. No rules in war. Kill the other guy before he can kill you. Beat the shit out of them, win the war then go home. Let them rebuild their country.

Hearts and minds my ass.

I heartily agree 100% with you. So where was the MSM on this because Obama's "globalist" America's # 1 apologist had NO idea of what was required and
more so the people he hired had the same mentality!

Read this example:

"As the car disappeared into the night, the senior officer on the scene radioed for permission to fire.
His request went to the TOC, the tactical operations center, which is the beating heart of command and control in the battlefield environment.
There the “battle captain,” or the senior officer in the chain of command, would decide — shoot or don’t shoot.

If soldiers opened fire after a lawyer had deemed the attack outside the rules, they would risk discipline — even prosecution.
But first there was a call for the battle captain to make, all the way to brigade headquarters, where a JAG officer — an Army lawyer — was on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
His job was to analyze the request, apply the governing rules of engagement, and make a recommendation to the chain of command.
While the commander made the ultimate decision, he rarely contradicted JAG recommendations. After all, if soldiers opened fire after a lawyer had deemed the attack outside the rules, they would risk discipline — even prosecution — if the engagement went awry.

NONE of the above steps were required in any previous wars the USA has been involved in...ending with the Korean war... starting with Vietnam!
In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.

Shades of Vietnam: Spike in U.S. troop deaths tied to stricter rules of engagement

Utter stupidity. ROE's need to be gone.
 
ROE is stupid. If you're going to war there are no rules.

ROE's are indeed stupid. If the other guy has a gun shoot his stupid ass. Don't wait for him to shoot at you.

I agree. No rules in war. Kill the other guy before he can kill you. Beat the shit out of them, win the war then go home. Let them rebuild their country.

Hearts and minds my ass.

I heartily agree 100% with you. So where was the MSM on this because Obama's "globalist" America's # 1 apologist had NO idea of what was required and
more so the people he hired had the same mentality!

Read this example:

"As the car disappeared into the night, the senior officer on the scene radioed for permission to fire.
His request went to the TOC, the tactical operations center, which is the beating heart of command and control in the battlefield environment.
There the “battle captain,” or the senior officer in the chain of command, would decide — shoot or don’t shoot.

If soldiers opened fire after a lawyer had deemed the attack outside the rules, they would risk discipline — even prosecution.
But first there was a call for the battle captain to make, all the way to brigade headquarters, where a JAG officer — an Army lawyer — was on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
His job was to analyze the request, apply the governing rules of engagement, and make a recommendation to the chain of command.
While the commander made the ultimate decision, he rarely contradicted JAG recommendations. After all, if soldiers opened fire after a lawyer had deemed the attack outside the rules, they would risk discipline — even prosecution — if the engagement went awry.

NONE of the above steps were required in any previous wars the USA has been involved in...ending with the Korean war... starting with Vietnam!
In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.

Shades of Vietnam: Spike in U.S. troop deaths tied to stricter rules of engagement

Utter stupidity. ROE's need to be gone.

Yeah because the Taliban certainly don't have ROE.

Insanity
 

Forum List

Back
Top