Obamas "New Strategy will not work because of a few simple facts
Obama should definately let his commanders on the ground make decisions, but that isnt being politically correct! Troops on the ground should not have to hold fire for political reasons
When the White House silences the generals in the field, it condemns our troops to the silence of the grave.
Obama's plan for Afghanistan assumes stability
This will be his Veitnam.
Afghanistan cannot be achieved by forcing "our troops" to "fight with both hands tied behind their backs."
Does anyone really believe that there's anything we can write or say that will persuade al Qaeda to make nice? No elegant phrase has ever stopped a bullet in midflight.
McChrystal’s implementation of his recent tactical directive which essentially changed the Rules Of Engagement for Afghanistan, some old warriors claimed that the net result of such a change would probably be more, not fewer, civilian casualties.
They are not allowed to proceed if there is a civilian in the area, yet the enemy is using civilians as human targets. The enemy knows the stradegy, keep a civilian within arms length and the soldiers cannot touch them
McChrystal’s new tactical directive which prohibits firing upon buildings or other locations (especially with the use of air power) if it is possible that noncombatants could be harmed is at least prima facie in the strategic interests of the campaign. Yet this same directive has caused Marines in Helmand to refuse to engage certain buildings with direct fires, the end result being that Taliban fighters later escaped. These same Taliban fighters will likely cause various distress to the local population, and may be involved in the development or emplacement of roadside bombs which will blow the legs off of Marines
Can you imagine if we had said during WW2 , no fighting the Nazis if civilians would possibly be harmed
More insanity from Obama and his minions. We place a higher value on civilians (moreover, who is a civilian?) than we do on our own troops. We will never win the war with these policies.
McChrystal severely restricted air and indirect fire support to our troops. As the marines have already stated.
A jet called in by the U.S. Marines had the Taliban position in sight, but the pilot refused to fire, a decision that frustrated Marines but was in line with new orders by a U.S. commander to protect civilians
If the military is to avoid the possibility of killing civiliansat all costs, I would suggest the military leave the Afghan nation. As long as Taliban know firing at them will be on hold they will alway use civilians as shields
We’ve let the Taliban set the terms of the fight, throwing away our military advantages
There are only three things to do when "meeting fire from all sides". Leave, die, or blow up "all sides". Of course, since Obama won't let the Marines actually fight since an Afghan 'citizen' might get injured or killed in the process, blowing up all sides and winning appear to be out of the equation. That being the case, I vote for leaving.
The result? We’ve got a general who’s been gagged, a president trapped by his campaign promises, a muddled mission, crippling restrictions on our troops, a resurgent enemy, a worthless Afghan government — and an AWOL establishment media that, after hammering the Bush administration, gives Obama a pass on American casualties
But American lives are cheap to American ideologues . So we’ve got a president terrified of taking a stand, a muzzled general, a muddled policy, and our magnificent troops employed as political pawns. In comparison, Vietnam was a model of clarity and purpose.
Army Veteran, Wife of soldier serving in Afghanistan