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

[Marion Morrison]

Even Saddam's generals believed the "lie" so how good does our intel have to be in your expert opinion? You can disregard the facts...that Saddam regenerated his ABC programs after Desert Storm. That Russian spetsnaz trucked the majority of his WMDs into Syria. Or that Iraq was not based only on WMDs in the first place. Since you must have been a past CIA operative or battalion commander to have such expert opinions....you were right?....try this on for size. Bush drew AQ into Iraq to go against our war-fighters instead of WTC secretaries and clerks. And they fell for it and lost somewhere around 12K fighters which was the end of them as a military force. ISIS agreed with your opinion about Barry running away from a won war...maybe you're one of them....are you?

here's the problem, people who had doubts about their being WMD's found their professional reputations trashed. A lot of people doubted there were WMD's, in the run up to the war, both inside and outside the US.

Nobody went to war because 20 years earlier, Saddam killed the Kurds. We went to war because George W. Stupid and his crew told us that Saddam had WMD's and was going to get us!!!!

Bush Lied. People Died.

And , no most of the people we killed in Iraq - about 600,000 of them - were not "fighters" or anyone we had an argument with.

What kind of day is it when I have to agree with you?

That's the 1st thing I've seen you post that I can agree with.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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!

Actually the comment about air-raiding villages was John "F-ing" Kerry

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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!

Patton had nothing to do with the Chinese. He wanted to take out the Russians.

MacArthur wanted to take out the Chinese during the Korean War.

 

[JoeB131]

Response to your above comment:
You won't do it but for other more scholarly and intellectually honest people this is a very definitive site describing in greater detail then a measly staff sergeant can understand!
One of many factors of Russia leaving Afghanistan:

completely irrelevent to anything. the point is, that if dumping in a bunch of troops was the solution, then the Russians would have crushed the Afghan resistance in 1981, long before Gorbachev ran the USSR into a ditch trying to reform it.

So in response to your above comment that the problem was we attempted to FORCE Vietnamese and Afghanis to adopt US style governance?
Well Trump agrees with you! I know you don't comprehend because in your limited scope of honesty you won't look at realities but through your extremely unininformed
and biased lens:...

Okay, I hate to break this to you, but Trump is not playing Three Dimensional Chess. Trump's motivations are nothing more complicated than not wanting the fall of Kabul to happen on his watch, because then he'd be "a loser'. So the Generals who are increasingly running things in this country have sold him on this plan to delay the inevitable.

And if some soldiers come back in boxes, that's their tough luck.

I don't think you comprehend that statement but honestly GWB never wanted "Nation-building" EITHER!!!
In October 2000, presidential candidate George W. Bush famously derided the concept of nation building and the suggestion that the U.S. military should take the lead in building up failed states. “Maybe I’m missing something here,” Mr. Bush said in a debate with Democratic rival Al Gore. “I mean, are we going to have some kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.”

With Bush we got trillions dumped into the middle east while bridges and levies collapsed in this country. Maybe the idiot should have listened to what his script writers wrote for him... if he actually understood it.

In Bush's defense, I would say he was a good guy with Oedipus issues who wasn't up to the job. But he meant well.

Trump, on the other hand is a malignant narcissist who is willing to double down on a war that has already been lost just so he can say we didn't lose on my watch.

 

[healthmyths]

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!

Actually the comment about air-raiding villages was John "F-ing" Kerry

No here is the actual quote:
Obama (August 2007): We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.
'Dishonorable' - FactCheck.org
A) YOU don't bad mouth your teammates, military, fellow Americans especially as a US Senator!
B) At the minimum Obama was ignorant on how the bad guys would take these words and TWIST them.. yes they DID twist them...
C) At the maximum Obama was just so politically driven he wanted to say something that appealed to all parties... INCLUDING the bad guys!
You just don't go around making stupid comments like that at the minimum and if you do it as I'm sure Obama did to maximize the political impact it was wrong regardless!

 

[Conservative65]

Anyone that expects those soldiers to fight with one hand tied isn't fighting to win, they're fighting to not lose. Sad thing is that's what will happen. I thought soldiers fought to win. Doing so requires fighting harder than the enemy.

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his". - G. Patton.

Sometimes that involves fighting in a manner that some weaklings may not like but it produces excellent results.

guy, the Russians sent a million troops in Afghanistan and they were a lot more ruthless than we ever would tolerate, and they still ended up fleeing with their tails between their legs.

The problem we have is the same one they had. the same problem we had in Vietnam. It's not the ability to win on the battlefield, it's that the kind of government we want them to have they reject.

If you put the Taliban on the ballot, they'd probably win.

Your BOY President had 8 years to get us out. When you can tell me why he didn't, then we can discuss anything you want.

1) He mostly got us out. Trump is the one who wants to dive back in.

2) Doubling down on Afghanistan was one of the things I criticize Obama for. The exercise became pointless after Karzai stole the election in 2009.

Who is this "we" you speak of? I'd tolerate whatever needs to be done in order to win including things for which you run and cry if you say happening.

1) Untrue

2) You don't criticize Obama for a damn thing. You're head is too far up his ass.

 

[healthmyths]

So you believe GWB was a stupid pawn manipulated by people to do THEIR will.
But of course YOU the staff sergeant in the military KNEW OH so much better the GWB right after 9/11! You had MORE information on hand then GWB. Where were you in advising GWB not to go in?

Oh, no, at the time, I was totally on board. Even though I left the military after the first Gulf War, I gave the president the benefit of the doubt. But now we know he lied. Or repeated other people's lies.

Keep in mind, I was pretty conservative until 2008 when my views changed after getting screwed over by an employer and a big insurance company.

Point of the matter is, Bush said Saddam had WMD's and he didn't. And a lot of people said he probably didn't at the time. There was no reason to go to war.

Maybe you were one of the 10% that didn't like GWB in 2002...when GWB had the HIGHEST favorability rating of ANY president.

No, like I said, I was pretty right wing up until 2008, when my boss at that time punctuated a royal fucking over with "Good thing I don't have to deal with a union". That's when I realized, I wasn't rich enough to vote Republican... and neither are you.

$500 in 2003 under Saddam... versus 2016 $16,500! That is a 3,200% growth in 13 years.
But of course YOU and your ignorant ilk would LOVE to have those Iraq people to live in a $500/per person Gross domestic product... a measure of a country's
economic well being.

A country where the people are only making $500 bucks a year, isn't a threat to us. I know the Military Industrial Complex needs fake threats like Iraq or North Korea to justify huge military pork budgets, but they really weren't.

So we dumped a Trillion Dollars into a country we had waged a decade of economic war on, and if you were lucky enough not to be one of the 600,000 people who died, you got to live with rampaging gangs of fanatics fighting over the resources that were left.

We really, really didn't do Iraq any favors by invading it.

But of course letting a staff sergeant run the country makes a whole lot of sense more then letting people with experiences with a little more responsibilities like GWB and Trump. Compared to Obama who NEVER ever ran anything and because of idiots like you who Obama said he lied openly to you calling you the "stupidity of American voter... !"

Dude, I don't want to run the country. Do I think I'm smarter than Bush or Trump? Um. Yeah. neither one of those guys is all that sharp, but they make Americans (the dumbest people in the industrialized world) feel better about themselves rather than address the real problems.

But let's run this down again. This thread is about Afghanistan. can you please let me know what brilliant strategy is going to change the course of the war?

Thanks.

You wrote: "But now we know he lied. Or repeated other people's lies."
Exactly what was the GWB's LIE or what lies did he repeat"?
Because here are the people that told him that Saddam had WMDs...Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

 

[JoeB131]

No here is the actual quote:
Obama (August 2007): We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.

Okay. You know what, when you get over your histrionics, he had a point. Our air raids weren't accomplishing anything and they were creating problems. Pretending a problem doesn't exist doesn't make it go away. When you are continuing the same failed policies for five years, I would hope someone would say something.

A) YOU don't bad mouth your teammates, military, fellow Americans especially as a US Senator!

Except he wasn't badmouthing the military, he was badmouthing a bad policy. Bush IGNORED the military again and again, when they told him they needed a lot more boots on the ground. But that would have required a draft and tax increases.

You keep drawing allegories to WWII. Okay, let's do what we did in WWII. Have a draft - rich people too - and tax the shit out of Rich people.

B) At the minimum Obama was ignorant on how the bad guys would take these words and TWIST them.. yes they DID twist them...

Um.. no It was the bombing that was making the "bad guys" (again, most of them just guys who were pissed off people were bombing their houses, just like you would be) angry. Not what Obama said about it.

C) At the maximum Obama was just so politically driven he wanted to say something that appealed to all parties... INCLUDING the bad guys!

Or he was saying the obvious. That what we were doing wasn't working and was creating new problems.

If someone who had no interest in fighting America in 1999 was fighting America in 2003 because we blew up his house and killed his family, he didn't need Obama to tell him why he was mad.

You just don't go around making stupid comments like that at the minimum and if you do it as I'm sure Obama did to maximize the political impact it was wrong regardless!

Yes. Please, please don't talk about the elephant in the middle of the room.

You wrote: "But now we know he lied. Or repeated other people's lies."
Exactly what was the GWB's LIE or what lies did he repeat"?
Because here are the people that told him that Saddam had WMDs...

None of those guys went to war with Saddam. Bush did.

Here's the thing. It was imcumbant on Bush to make sure that
1) Saddam really had a WMD program and
2) Every other diplomatic option had been exhausted before invading and
3) Actually make sure that you had the troops in place to secure the country

Bush didn't do those three things.

 

[JoeB131]

Who is this "we" you speak of? I'd tolerate whatever needs to be done in order to win including things for which you run and cry if you say happening.

1) Untrue

2) You don't criticize Obama for a damn thing. You're head is too far up his ass.

When Obama became president in we had 25,000 troops in Afghanistan. He surged that to 100,000 to push back the Taliban after Bush neglected the problem for seven years, but scaled it back to 8000 when he left.

So, yeah, that's an accurate statement.

 

[healthmyths]

So I ask you BushBashers... are you telling me HE should not have believed these Democrats that were so sure of Saddam's WMDs? He should not believe as
Pelosi did as a member of the House Intelligence Committee that Saddam had chemical/biological WMDs? Or GWB should have acting totally as you detractors suggest
he should have IGNORED these Democrats because Bush KNEW that they were LYING JUST as you so brilliant prescient people seemingly knew? Where were YOU at the time?

 

[Conservative65]

Who is this "we" you speak of? I'd tolerate whatever needs to be done in order to win including things for which you run and cry if you say happening.

1) Untrue

2) You don't criticize Obama for a damn thing. You're head is too far up his ass.

When Obama became president in we had 25,000 troops in Afghanistan. He surged that to 100,000 to push back the Taliban after Bush neglected the problem for seven years, but scaled it back to 8000 when he left.

So, yeah, that's an accurate statement.

Who is this "we" you speak of? I'd tolerate whatever needs to be done in order to win including things for which you run and cry if you say happening.

1) Untrue

2) You don't criticize Obama for a damn thing. You're head is too far up his ass.

When Obama became president in we had 25,000 troops in Afghanistan. He surged that to 100,000 to push back the Taliban after Bush neglected the problem for seven years, but scaled it back to 8000 when he left.

So, yeah, that's an accurate statement.

Just like I said. You claimed you criticized Obama for Afghanistan yet you just praised him. Which one is it, NL?

 

[healthmyths]

Who is this "we" you speak of? I'd tolerate whatever needs to be done in order to win including things for which you run and cry if you say happening.

1) Untrue

2) You don't criticize Obama for a damn thing. You're head is too far up his ass.

When Obama became president in we had 25,000 troops in Afghanistan. He surged that to 100,000 to push back the Taliban after Bush neglected the problem for seven years, but scaled it back to 8000 when he left.

So, yeah, that's an accurate statement.

And now we are back to the topic of the THREAD! HOORAY that Trump has removed the stupid ass ROEs like this one:
"Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."
Surely idiots who made it to Staff Sergeants should comprehend as any policeman does... you can't defend anything if you don't go to the areas were you might have to use lethal force".....DUH... and you brilliant tactician that you were in the "military" don't think the bad guys KNEW of this dumb ass ROE? GEEZ that's like putting a sign
up in Afghanistan telling the bad guys "this is a no gun zone"!!! I bet that's what you would like to have been done!

Here read another one of your hero's ROEs that truly marginalized the ability of the local commanders to fight with both hands unfettered!


"Can you tell them that (the 9th Division) is receiving fire?" he told his coalition colleagues at another forward base overseeing the operation. He asked them to pinpoint where the attack was coming from using coalition aerial surveillance and take it out.
Just a few months ago, Lt. Col. Browning's phone conversation would have been impossible. Rather than request assistance directly, his call would have likely been routed through a joint command center much farther from the battle zone. In the fight against the Islamic State group in Mosul, the United States has adjusted its rules of engagement as American and other international troops are now closer to front-line fighting than before.
US Changes Rules of Engagement for Mosul Fight in Iraq | Military.com

Obama severely restricted rules of engagement.
The U.S. was only allowed to intervene on behalf of the Afghans about to suffer a particularly devastating military setback.
These rules of engagement, coupled with an increasingly corrupt Afghan government,
led to the Taliban’s best year since the U.S. invasion and, later, fertile ground for a new ISIS branch.

Obama’s Terror Legacy: While ‘Ending’ One War, Making Two Much Worse

 

[JoeB131]

So I ask you BushBashers... are you telling me HE should not have believed these Democrats that were so sure of Saddam's WMDs? He should not believe as
Pelosi did as a member of the House Intelligence Committee that Saddam had chemical/biological WMDs? Or GWB should have acting totally as you detractors suggest
he should have IGNORED these Democrats because Bush KNEW that they were LYING JUST as you so brilliant prescient people seemingly knew? Where were YOU at the time?

Again, none of those people authorized an invasion that the generals all told him was a bad idea, the UN said was a bad idea, most of our allies said was a bad idea.

The thing was, when a lot of people like Hans Blix, Scott Ritter and Mohammed El-baradai all said, "We don't think he has a WMD Program" that was probably a good clue to make sure before you do the invasion everyone thought was a bad idea.

Final point- We did not go to war because Saddam had Chemical weapons, the cutting edge technology of 1914. We went to war because he had a nuke. Supposedly. And was buying Uranium, even though the CIA told Bush he wasn't. So Bush repeated a discredited foreign report.

 

[JoeB131]

Obama severely restricted rules of engagement.
The U.S. was only allowed to intervene on behalf of the Afghans about to suffer a particularly devastating military setback.
These rules of engagement, coupled with an increasingly corrupt Afghan government,
led to the Taliban’s best year since the U.S. invasion and, later, fertile ground for a new ISIS branch.

So I'm sorry, why exactly are we asking American troops to risk life and limb to fight when the afghans themselves aren't willing to?

Surely idiots who made it to Staff Sergeants should comprehend as any policeman does... you can't defend anything if you don't go to the areas were you might have to use lethal force".....DUH... and you brilliant tactician that you were in the "military" don't think the bad guys KNEW of this dumb ass ROE? GEEZ that's like putting a sign
up in Afghanistan telling the bad guys "this is a no gun zone"!!! I bet that's what you would like to have been done!

The ROE's we had in place when I was in was not to use lethal force in places where civilians were likely to get caught in the crossfire.

Again- The ROE's aren't the problem.

The people we are supporting are the problem. Their own people HATE them.

 

[JoeB131]

Just like I said. You claimed you criticized Obama for Afghanistan yet you just praised him. Which one is it, NL?

Poinitng out numbers is praise?

 

[Conservative65]

Just like I said. You claimed you criticized Obama for Afghanistan yet you just praised him. Which one is it, NL?

Poinitng out numbers is praise?

Just like I said. You claimed you criticized Obama for Afghanistan yet you just praised him. Which one is it, NL?

Poinitng out numbers is praise?

You thought the numbers was what I was addressing?

 

[healthmyths]

Obama severely restricted rules of engagement.
The U.S. was only allowed to intervene on behalf of the Afghans about to suffer a particularly devastating military setback.
These rules of engagement, coupled with an increasingly corrupt Afghan government,
led to the Taliban’s best year since the U.S. invasion and, later, fertile ground for a new ISIS branch.

So I'm sorry, why exactly are we asking American troops to risk life and limb to fight when the afghans themselves aren't willing to?

Surely idiots who made it to Staff Sergeants should comprehend as any policeman does... you can't defend anything if you don't go to the areas were you might have to use lethal force".....DUH... and you brilliant tactician that you were in the "military" don't think the bad guys KNEW of this dumb ass ROE? GEEZ that's like putting a sign
up in Afghanistan telling the bad guys "this is a no gun zone"!!! I bet that's what you would like to have been done!

The ROE's we had in place when I was in was not to use lethal force in places where civilians were likely to get caught in the crossfire.

Again- The ROE's aren't the problem.

The people we are supporting are the problem. Their own people HATE them.

So you the military expert are telling me that by telling the bad guys ..."Hey we've been ordered by our dimwit Commander in Chief that if you are going to
fire on us ... we the US military will NOT fire back because we can only go in areas that I'm reasonably certain that I will not have to fire back"!
Yup that's the gist of it. So the bad guys KNOW ...."hey let's take over this town because their dimwit commander in chief has told his troops don't go there
because you might have to use your weapons"!

Sure now I know WHY you are no longer in the military! Chicken!

 

[healthmyths]

So I ask you BushBashers... are you telling me HE should not have believed these Democrats that were so sure of Saddam's WMDs? He should not believe as
Pelosi did as a member of the House Intelligence Committee that Saddam had chemical/biological WMDs? Or GWB should have acting totally as you detractors suggest
he should have IGNORED these Democrats because Bush KNEW that they were LYING JUST as you so brilliant prescient people seemingly knew? Where were YOU at the time?

Again, none of those people authorized an invasion that the generals all told him was a bad idea, the UN said was a bad idea, most of our allies said was a bad idea.

The thing was, when a lot of people like Hans Blix, Scott Ritter and Mohammed El-baradai all said, "We don't think he has a WMD Program" that was probably a good clue to make sure before you do the invasion everyone thought was a bad idea.

Final point- We did not go to war because Saddam had Chemical weapons, the cutting edge technology of 1914. We went to war because he had a nuke. Supposedly. And was buying Uranium, even though the CIA told Bush he wasn't. So Bush repeated a discredited foreign report.

AND So Pelosi was listening to the same people Blix, Ritter,et.al. but they were LYING to her when she said:
As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
So they were lying to her at that time is that right?

and this guy was lying? He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

And they were lying to Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Those same people you said were telling GWB one thing were telling the above and all of Congress a LIE?

 

[healthmyths]

Obama severely restricted rules of engagement.
The U.S. was only allowed to intervene on behalf of the Afghans about to suffer a particularly devastating military setback.
These rules of engagement, coupled with an increasingly corrupt Afghan government,
led to the Taliban’s best year since the U.S. invasion and, later, fertile ground for a new ISIS branch.

So I'm sorry, why exactly are we asking American troops to risk life and limb to fight when the afghans themselves aren't willing to?

Surely idiots who made it to Staff Sergeants should comprehend as any policeman does... you can't defend anything if you don't go to the areas were you might have to use lethal force".....DUH... and you brilliant tactician that you were in the "military" don't think the bad guys KNEW of this dumb ass ROE? GEEZ that's like putting a sign
up in Afghanistan telling the bad guys "this is a no gun zone"!!! I bet that's what you would like to have been done!

The ROE's we had in place when I was in was not to use lethal force in places where civilians were likely to get caught in the crossfire.

Again- The ROE's aren't the problem.

The people we are supporting are the problem. Their own people HATE them.

So I've looked up your wild ass comment THEIR OWN PEOPLE HATE THEM!!!
FACTS: Not exaggerations!Afghanistan: How Afghans Would Negotiate Their Own Peace
Gallup surveys indicate that in the future, Afghans would benefit by being able to pick local leaders who meet their specific regional needs.
A majority of Afghans, 58%, supported their local leaders, according to the latest survey from April 2010. Approval levels vary by region; at least 61% of people in the Northern and Central regions approve of their local governments, compared with 45% of people in the South. Interestingly, approval levels in all regions have increased since 2008, perhaps an indication that all Afghans are steadily gaining confidence in their local leaders. In addition, because Afghan culture is steeped in tribal traditions and local leaders are likely from the predominant tribe of the area, people may trust them more than their national leaders, who are often from areas other than their own.
OK... so there goes your exaggeration:
THEIR OWN PEOPLE hate them!
Wrong!

In fact if you read what Trump said in his Afghan speech well here in his OWN words:

"America will continue its support for the Afghan government and the Afghan military as they confront the Taliban in the field. Ultimately, it is up to the people of Afghanistan to take ownership of their future, to govern their society, and to achieve an ever-lasting peace. We are a partner and a friend, but we will not dictate to the Afghan people how to live or how to govern their own complex society. We are not nation building again. We are killing terrorists
Full Transcript: Read the full transcript of Trump's Afghanistan speech

Trump is admitting why the Gallup poll shows... let the Afghanis determine how they want to be governed!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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!

Actually the comment about air-raiding villages was John "F-ing" Kerry

No here is the actual quote:
Obama (August 2007): We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.
'Dishonorable' - FactCheck.org
A) YOU don't bad mouth your teammates, military, fellow Americans especially as a US Senator!
B) At the minimum Obama was ignorant on how the bad guys would take these words and TWIST them.. yes they DID twist them...
C) At the maximum Obama was just so politically driven he wanted to say something that appealed to all parties... INCLUDING the bad guys!
You just don't go around making stupid comments like that at the minimum and if you do it as I'm sure Obama did to maximize the political impact it was wrong regardless!

I stand corrected.

Kerry said something similar, but you are correct.