Rules of Engagement (ROE) CHANGED...Hurray!!!

[Tom Horn]

 

[healthmyths]

Bout damned time.

Who the hell expects soldiers to fight with one hand tied behind their backs?

Men forced to use ridiculous Rules of Engagement prepared by folks who are sitting on their big fat asses safe at home??

Why are we still there again?

When you can tell me that, then we can discuss the Rules of Engagement.

So this doesn't happen again.

 

[healthmyths]

I really don't understand you people that have never been in combat! While I never have, I at least can understand that if idiots like Obama who micromanaged the
wars in Iraq/Afghanistan with these stupid ass ROEs we would never win!
GEEZ WWII. Ike Never had to check with FDR. FDR was smart enough to let the military do what they know how to do best!
It wasn't till dumb FDR wouldn't let Patton clean out the Chinese that we have our problems today!
We'd had no Korea. No Vietnam. No Afghanistan, No Iraq!
All because civilians tried to tell the military how to win the war ....POLITICALLY against entities that had NO POLITICS...just dictators!
How Our Overly Restrictive Rules of Engagement Keep Us from Winning Wars
This evening, however, our troopers believed that the car ahead wasn’t full of civilians.
The driver was too skilled, his tactics too knowing for a carload of shepherds.
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.

Then the call came. Suicide bomber. One of the suspects had self-detonated, and Americans were hurt.
One badly — very badly. Despite desperate efforts to save his life, he died just before he arrived at a functioning aid station.
Another casualty of the rules of engagement

How Our Overly Restrictive Rules of Engagement Keep Us from Winning Wars

This is What President Trump KNEW and has since done away with!
Political correctness run amok costing lives!

 

[healthmyths]

The modern result is a military farce. American forces play by the rules while our enemies exploit those same rules to limit our freedom of action, create sanctuaries where they can rest and rearm, and then launch international propaganda campaigns when our painstaking targeting proves to be the least bit imprecise. Yet — and here’s the crucial point — through their rules of engagement, American soldiers don’t just comply with the law of war. They go beyond the requirements of the LOAC to impose additional and legally unnecessary restrictions on the use of military force.
Rules of engagement represent true war-by-wonk, in which a deadly brew of lawyers, politicians, soldiers, and social scientists endeavors to fine-tune the use of military force to somehow kill the enemy while “winning over” the local population even as the local population is in the direct line of fire.

How Our Overly Restrictive Rules of Engagement Keep Us from Winning Wars

 

[healthmyths]

And remember THESE are the people that think they know better then the battlefield commanders!

 

[JoeB131]

You assume someone gives a fuck about your opinion. We ARE there and since we are it's time to the take the handcuffs off.

I'm just asking what you think we are going to be able to Accomplish that the Soviets were unable to do despite being a lot more ruthless, having a lot more resources and much shorter supply lines.

When you let me know that, we can have a discussion. Right after you tell me why we need to keep throwing good money after bad.

 

[Doc1]

You assume someone gives a fuck about your opinion. We ARE there and since we are it's time to the take the handcuffs off.

I'm just asking what you think we are going to be able to Accomplish that the Soviets were unable to do despite being a lot more ruthless, having a lot more resources and much shorter supply lines.

When you let me know that, we can have a discussion. Right after you tell me why we need to keep throwing good money after bad.

I'm telling you that we are there. Until we aren't we turn our guys loose. If that's something you don't agree with you are an enemy of the State.

 

[JoeB131]

The modern result is a military farce. American forces play by the rules while our enemies exploit those same rules to limit our freedom of action, create sanctuaries where they can rest and rearm, and then launch international propaganda campaigns when our painstaking targeting proves to be the least bit imprecise. Yet — and here’s the crucial point — through their rules of engagement, American soldiers don’t just comply with the law of war. They go beyond the requirements of the LOAC to impose additional and legally unnecessary restrictions on the use of military force.
Rules of engagement represent true war-by-wonk, in which a deadly brew of lawyers, politicians, soldiers, and social scientists endeavors to fine-tune the use of military force to somehow kill the enemy while “winning over” the local population even as the local population is in the direct line of fire.

Okay, you see, the thing. We can't win the Afghan's War for them. No matter how much we want to.

If you think our problem over there is the Rules of Engagement.... you are deluded.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm telling you that we are there. Until we aren't we turn our guys loose. If that's something you don't agree with you are an enemy of the State.

We get our guys on planes, then we aren't there anymore. This really isn't fucking difficult.

Look, I know that you live in mortal terror that Trump-Afghanistan is going to fail like Trump Steaks, but that's really not my problem.

 

[JoeB131]

So this doesn't happen again.

Except that there are w hole lot of better places for ISIS or Al Qaeda to set up shop than Afghanistan to plot the next attrocity. Yemen, Libya and Syria come to mind, as well as Iraq. Places that are closer to where they live and they can recruit local talent because they speak the same language.

Hey, if you guys were serious about keeping that from happening again- How about changing our dumb-ass Zionist policies that make them angry.

Because there are a BILLION of them and only 300 million of us.

 

[JoeB131]

I really don't understand you people that have never been in combat! While I never have, I at least can understand that if idiots like Obama who micromanaged the
wars in Iraq/Afghanistan with these stupid ass ROEs we would never win!
GEEZ WWII. Ike Never had to check with FDR. FDR was smart enough to let the military do what they know how to do best!

World War II, we had the Chinese, Soviets and British India troops to do most of the heavy lifting.

We also drafted most of the adult male population, nationalized the factories and passed confiscatory taxes on the wealthy. Somehow, I don't think you'd be down for any of those things to win this war.

Here's the thing. The Taliban in Afghanistan might be a bunch of assholes, but they arent' an existential threat to the United States. We need to stop treating them like they are.

 

[JoeB131]

This is What President Trump KNEW and has since done away with!
Political correctness run amok costing lives!

Okay... So how is that going to make the Afghans love us, again.

Look, there was a time when Afghanistan MIGHT have been winnable. That was in 2002, when we had world opinion on our side and the reputation of the Taliban was at an all-time low. But that window closed a long time ago. Probably because Bush pulled out to get Saddam for trying to kill his pappy.

Here's the problem. We are picking a side in a civil war. And the side we are backing isn't that keen on winning.

 

[westwall]

I really don't understand you people that have never been in combat! While I never have, I at least can understand that if idiots like Obama who micromanaged the
wars in Iraq/Afghanistan with these stupid ass ROEs we would never win!
GEEZ WWII. Ike Never had to check with FDR. FDR was smart enough to let the military do what they know how to do best!

World War II, we had the Chinese, Soviets and British India troops to do most of the heavy lifting.

We also drafted most of the adult male population, nationalized the factories and passed confiscatory taxes on the wealthy. Somehow, I don't think you'd be down for any of those things to win this war.

Here's the thing. The Taliban in Afghanistan might be a bunch of assholes, but they arent' an existential threat to the United States. We need to stop treating them like they are.

The taliban ARE an existential threat. Funny how you can't seem to figure that one out.

 

[JoeB131]

The taliban ARE an existential threat. Funny how you can't seem to figure that one out.

I think you don't understand what the word "Existential" means.

Nazi Germany was an existential threat.
The USSR was an existential threat.

They could do something that could END America as we know it.

The Taliban. Not so much. Sure they could sponsor a terror attack or two. But that wouldn't END America.

Sorry, a bunch of guys hiding in caves is NOT an existential threat.

Happy to have cleared that up for you.

 

[healthmyths]

You assume someone gives a fuck about your opinion. We ARE there and since we are it's time to the take the handcuffs off.

I'm just asking what you think we are going to be able to Accomplish that the Soviets were unable to do despite being a lot more ruthless, having a lot more resources and much shorter supply lines.

When you let me know that, we can have a discussion. Right after you tell me why we need to keep throwing good money after bad.

The USA helped kick the Russians out!
Obviously you never heard of Charlie Wilson's War! Check it out Charlie Wilson's War (2007) - IMDb
In the 1980s U.S.Rep. Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks), Texas socialite Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts) and CIA agent Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) form an unlikely alliance to boost funding for Afghan freedom fighters in their war against invading Soviets. The trio's successful efforts to finance these covert operations contributes to the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.
Now I just happened to see a military channel broadcast tonite about Charlie Wilson (by the way a DEMOCRAT!) and how the use of GPS helped the guerrillas target their mortars.
Beginning in 1985, the CIA supplied mujahideen rebels with extensive satellite reconnaissance data of Soviet targets on the Afghan battlefield, plans for military operations based on the satellite intelligence, intercepts of Soviet communications, secret communications networks for the rebels, delayed timing devices for tons of C-4 plastic explosives for urban sabotage, and sophisticated guerrilla attacks, long-range sniper rifles, a targeting device for mortars that was linked to a U.S. Navy satellite, wire-guided anti-tank missiles, and other equipment.
Between 1986 and 1989, the mujahideen were also provided with more than 1,000 state-of-the-art, shoulder-fired Stinger antiaircraft missiles.
By 1987, the annual supply of arms had reached 65,000 tons, Afghanistan, the CIA, bin Laden, and the Taliban

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm telling you that we are there. Until we aren't we turn our guys loose. If that's something you don't agree with you are an enemy of the State.

We get our guys on planes, then we aren't there anymore. This really isn't fucking difficult.

Look, I know that you live in mortal terror that Trump-Afghanistan is going to fail like Trump Steaks, but that's really not my problem.

Explain in DETAIL why before Trump was President you NEVER voiced a desire for Obama to get our troops out?

 

[Old Rocks]

Does anyone remember how effective 'free fire zones' were in Vietnam? You start indicriminately killing people, and those people left are going to start killing right back. No nation has ever been successful in occupying Afghanistan. The cost eventually wore them out, and they either left, or tried to stay with an inexpensive occupying force, too small for the job, which the Afghans wiped out.

We will suffer the same fate in Afghanistan as did the Russians.

 

[Old Rocks]

The major point I am making with regards to Trump's rescinding the Obama ROEs is that makes a world of difference in how our military can respond AND also
teach the Afghanis. All of Obama's ROEs were political based. That is, if we happen to have civilian collateral damage that would have never happened!
Remember Obama was the traitor who told the world "our troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
He and these other traitors also helped the barbarians by telling the world:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost", Certainly gave the barbarians a good old atta boy!
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Or how about the future Secretary of State Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Calling our troops "TERRORISTS"!
With this mentality was it NO wonder ISIS regained Mosul,etc. and 11% of Afghanistan is still in barbarians' hands.

With these totally hand tying ROEs and the politically correct mentality GONE... maybe our military can do what the trillions of dollars are used for WIN!
Defeat the Islamic extremists and its core objective is becoming clear: to kill Christians. Its long-term goal: to provoke a new Crusade, reviving the holy wars of many hundreds of years ago in the belief that this time around Islam will win.
In practical terms, this focus on a single pervasive, easily targeted enemy is useful to a “caliphate” under pressure that is trying to keep its troops in line.
ISIS Orders Its Franchises to Kill Christians

As President Trump clearly outlined... it is them or us!

Ah yes, heard this argument concerning Vietnam. They won, but here we are, and there they still are, and we are not communist, and they are not western. Were we to pull out of Afghanistan tomorrow, the world would hardly notice. Nor would most of the citizens of the nation.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm telling you that we are there. Until we aren't we turn our guys loose. If that's something you don't agree with you are an enemy of the State.

We get our guys on planes, then we aren't there anymore. This really isn't fucking difficult.

Look, I know that you live in mortal terror that Trump-Afghanistan is going to fail like Trump Steaks, but that's really not my problem.

Explain in DETAIL why before Trump was President you NEVER voiced a desire for Obama to get our troops out?

I don't need to. I stated from the very start, that the only wise thing to do in that nation was to have gone in, killed Bin Laden, and got the hell out. President Obama succeeded in having Bin Laden killed, but he should then have taken us out of Afghanistan. A worthless black hole sucking up our money.

 

[Rustic]

So this doesn't happen again.

Except that there are w hole lot of better places for ISIS or Al Qaeda to set up shop than Afghanistan to plot the next attrocity. Yemen, Libya and Syria come to mind, as well as Iraq. Places that are closer to where they live and they can recruit local talent because they speak the same language.

Hey, if you guys were serious about keeping that from happening again- How about changing our dumb-ass Zionist policies that make them angry.

Because there are a BILLION of them and only 300 million of us.

Muslims are not rational people you son of a bitch.